Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 115 posts

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#71

Post by Zak »

swombat wrote: post #44
MartinCron wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no I haven't been through an electronic strip search, so I can't speak to that. I can speak to the last time I had a pat-down at the airport: I found it pretty invasive. I've never thought of myself as a big "personal space" guy, but here is this TSA agent, grabbing aggressively at all of my pockets,…

I can't recall where I heard/read that, but I seem to remember some psychology research that proposed that the psychologically damaging thing about the search you describe is not actually the search itself, but precisely the fact that you can't do anything about it. IIRC, the conclusion of that research was something along the lines of: to completely destroy someone's self-confidence/emotional stability, all you need…

I have to ask: why would a security guard in a normal office situation have the authority to randomly pat down someone who is known to work in the building?

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#72

Post by SoftwareMaven »

Silhouette wrote: post #41
pmjordan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Already the case in the UK as far as I know. Not everyone is required to go through them, and not all airports have them, but if you're one of the "lucky" ones and you refuse, you don't fly. Can't seem to find the article from some months ago to back this up, unfortunately.

I don't fly from Heathrow airport for this reason. As far as I'm concerned, I do have something to hide: the intimate details of my body are not for the amusement or abuse of random "security" staff. If you don't like that point of view, f@#% off: we voted out the government who tried to turn us into a fear-driven police state, and now we are laughing at all the former ministers when they bleat about how much the wor…

We did the same thing here in America. Guess what? Nothing changed.

Once a power is taken by the government, it is not likely to let it go. I hope you have better luck than we did.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#73

Post by roc »

scott_s wrote: post #26
tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it bother you to find a name-attributed copy of your body scan in a zip file on Rapidshare? Why do you assume that won't happen? I assume the opposite.

Not too much. It would bother me some , of course. But not enough to take the extra five minutes for the alternative. (It seems you assumed I hadn't thought of the worst case, and then further assumed it would bother me.) I would be embarrassed to walk around naked, of course. But there the embarrassment is mostly from violating social norms. The remaining part is, of course, exposed genitalia. The rest of my body co…

The burden of justification for new security measures should be on the TSA. And they have failed at this. This sort of thing is a gross violation of personal privacy, entirely without cause. That it adds expense and delay for no demonstrable increase in plane security is but adding insult to injury.

Hearing people approach security measures with the argument "whatever would you have to hide, citizen?" is the worst part of the ongoing "War on Terror" debacle.

I'm hoping you're playing devil's advocate here.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#74

Post by [deleted] »

swombat wrote: post #44
MartinCron wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no I haven't been through an electronic strip search, so I can't speak to that. I can speak to the last time I had a pat-down at the airport: I found it pretty invasive. I've never thought of myself as a big "personal space" guy, but here is this TSA agent, grabbing aggressively at all of my pockets,…

I can't recall where I heard/read that, but I seem to remember some psychology research that proposed that the psychologically damaging thing about the search you describe is not actually the search itself, but precisely the fact that you can't do anything about it. IIRC, the conclusion of that research was something along the lines of: to completely destroy someone's self-confidence/emotional stability, all you need…

[deleted]

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#75

Post by pyre »

tptacek wrote: post #70
pyre wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of charges that you can be arrested for at the sole discretion of the officer. I've heard exchanges like: officer: Don't go anywhere friend: Am I under arrest? officer: No, but don't go anywhere. friend: If I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving. officer: If you leave, I *will* arrest you with impeding an investigation / obstruction of justice (That exchange followed from someone not involved in a…

Your first example is naive. The police cannot arrest you absent an actual crime, but they can detain you for a "reasonable" amount of time; if you simply walk away from an officer, you are in fact impeding an investigation. There is a clear difference between an arrest and being "detained": during an arrest, the police can search you and your vehicle, put you in restraints, and drive you away to a police station. Th…

In my example, the people were 'detained' for a few hours, during which they were not asked any questions at all. They just had to sit around at the police station twiddling their thumbs. In my mind, this just police intimidation. Some police officer didn't like them or what they were doing, so they decided to harass them. I don't think that, as a society, we should just accept this as a fact of life. By doing so, we give the police carte blanche to continue doing so, and to attempt to push the envelope even further.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#76

Post by ekidd »

eru wrote: post #60
_ouxp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I believe the article is correct, and later experiments probably bear it out, Milgram's experiments don't directly support that cliam: The "teacher" (the subject) could not see the person he believed he was shocking at all. Nonetheless, it's a relevant link to bring up because of the chain of command and obedience to authority aspects at play here.

There were several variations. In one variation the `teacher' could see the `pupil'.

In another variation, the teacher actually had to physically press the (fake) pupil's hands onto the device that gave electric shocks. IIRC, this squicked out a few more people, but quite a large portion still went through with it.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#77

Post by blackguardx »

tptacek wrote: post #13
scott_s wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To those who suggest that the pat-down searches are as intrusive or more intrusive than the electronic strip searches: no. There's no objective answer to this. I believe you and I have discussed this before. Personally, the scans don't bother me at all. Being patted down doesn't bother me too much, but it does bother me at least some. So, for me, I'd rather walk through a scanner unobstructed than be patted down.

Would it bother you to find a name-attributed copy of your body scan in a zip file on Rapidshare? Why do you assume that won't happen? I assume the opposite.

It wouldn't bother me too much. I am not ashamed of my body and neither should you be.

It is a shame that we as Americans are taught to be afraid of our bodies and nudity in general. Why is this? I think it is a cancer on our culture that we need to change.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#78

Post by swombat »

Zak wrote: post #71
swombat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't recall where I heard/read that, but I seem to remember some psychology research that proposed that the psychologically damaging thing about the search you describe is not actually the search itself, but precisely the fact that you can't do anything about it. IIRC, the conclusion of that research was something along the lines of: to completely destroy someone's self-confidence/emotional stability, all you need…

I have to ask: why would a security guard in a normal office situation have the authority to randomly pat down someone who is known to work in the building?

I don't know, I never asked... I think it was a government job... there might have been some special security. No idea, though, sorry.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#79

Post by Devilboy »

sprout wrote: post #35
tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it bother you to find a name-attributed copy of your body scan in a zip file on Rapidshare? Why do you assume that won't happen? I assume the opposite.

And? Why would anyone other than an art student want a body scan of every person going through Chicago on a busy day? What is the horror that will befall me if someone sees me naked?

Someone with a smaller penis than yourself might be embarrassed at his scan getting posted on Facebook or wherever - even if you personally are OK with it.

Re: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

#80

Post by die_sekte »

tptacek wrote: post #68
die_sekte wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a German I need to have an ID card, but do not need to carry it with me. The same is true for many other EU states. Civil liberties are apparently in decline everywhere, but I would argue that the EU is somewhat better than the US in that regard and that the actual abuse of laws is better in the EU. I think you are slightly overacting. It could be that you as a non-EU-citizen were subjected to harsher standards. M…

Are you sure? In Germany: * Can the state police demand that you open a bag for inspection on a train? * Can you be detained at length (for instance, removed to a police station) if you're asked to identify yourself and don't have documentation? * Are the police under any circumstances permitted to randomly stop and search cars? * Can the police check your pockets during a pat-down search for weapons? Each of these i…

In Schengen, you might have to have your identity determined by the police at the police station, so yeah, you can be detained for that.

Searches, in Germany, generally demand cause. I have no idea what laws govern searches in Switzerland.

The part with citizens vs non-citizens was mainly about borders. The US is known to be incredibly mean to non-citizens, going so far as to require a visum for transit, whereas Schengen only requires a transit visum for citizens of a small number of states.

It seems strange that Swiss police did a random search. Anyway, it seems that the US police also does random searches—at train stations for example.

Post reply on HN