Tiberath wrote:
Xioden wrote: So releasing otherwise revealing images of people so long as identifying marks are blurred out is okay? Sorry, No. | |
Xioden wrote:
So releasing otherwise revealing images of people so long as identifying marks are blurred out is okay? Sorry, No. If there is no way the person can be identified, there is no loss of privacy here. You can argue until your blue in the face, but this is an absolute truth. The second you enter the airport, you are bound by their rules and regulations. If you don't like this, take a damn boat. This is another reason why there is no "loss of your civil liberties". | |
Xioden wrote:
and the images *are* exact and defined prior being blurred down by the software. Well, no shit. But they aren't accessible by normal means, so this is irrelevant. Are encryption algorithms secure because the plaintext is extant before the ciphertext is produced? No. | |
Xioden wrote:
No one is broadcasting it to anyone... At least not until the first batch of photos from it gets released to only, you know, the entire world via the internet. Except that this is pretty much impossible, given that you'll only see a cartoonish rendition which would be rendered nearly impossible to see. Plus, prosecution would be very easy since it'd be obvious where the photos originate from, and who was monitoring the machine at that time. Seriously, please stop talking. Everything you're saying is painfully stupid and near-sighted, obviously not thought out well. | |
Yes, sorry your one of the sheep who doesn't care about their privacy being violated. "It's different so it's not the same". Sorry, but no. Strip searched in a room or stripped searched by a camera being viewed by a person is the same thing.
"> If people were being put behind a curtain and being told to strip prior to being allowed on a plane they would be outraged... But then again probably not since like everyone else they'd just bend over and take it as their rights are being taken away under the guise of security. Are you insinuate the government is trying to see people... not nude, so that they can just push to further take away their rights that aren't being violated? Do you realize how absolutely inane this sounds?" No, I'm saying exactly what I said. Because of the guise of security provided by this, people will bend over and take it. The fact of the matter is, they ARE nude for all intent and purposes. Just because it's slightly blurred on the viewers end does mean they aren't going to crack jokes and point as the guy/women walks out. The TSA inspectors are more like trained monkey's than trained professionals after all. Because you know, if you actually were aware of how the technology was being utilized, the images are being viewed by a person, not a computer. A few places noted it was done by a person remotely, but when I was through one a couple years ago the monitor was about 3 feet from the scanner and in plain site of everyone about 10 feet back in the line. "> "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -Benjamin Franklin I feel I should point out to you that quoting an intelligent man doesn't cause his intelligence to rub off on you." More and more today people are willing to just bend over and take whatever people want them to do. More and more the government in one form or another get's around people's rights. Before long some politician is going to look at some statistics and turn around and go "Hey more than half of people forgo their right to an attorney when they're arrested, we don't need them anymore apparently!" And enough of the monkey's in Washington will agree and suddenly people don't have a right to legal council anymore when they're arrested. Hell, if we all had transparent clothes or just ran around naked we wouldn't need those scanners at all! Quick! Start Writing your local senators and congressman! | |
Tiberath wrote:
Xioden wrote: A set of images gets released "Security images from [airport] on [date]" On that particular day a guy missing his right leg and left arm goes through. How many other people fitting that description do you think went through the airport that day? It may not be completely apparent to the world exactly who he is, but anyone who knew he was flying out of that airport that day could certainly come to a pretty sure conclusion. The second you enter the airport, you are bound by their rules and regulations. If you don't like this, take a damn boat. This is another reason why there is no "loss of your civil liberties". The airport might be a private facility, but the TSA is a branch of the Department of Homeland Security. Sorry to tell you, but that's not a private corporation but rather part of the government. | |
I do so love it when people start using incredibly unlikely scenarios to try and win arguments.
With the airport and date, that one poor soul is now free to sue that security guard, or airport even, and then have a lovely few {thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions) of dollars to ease his pain. This is again, assuming that the images will be released over the internet, even more so, assuming they'd be released with both airport and date information intact. Next you'll be complaining about security cameras being everywhere, and that they might just catch a shot of a woman wearing a skirt on a windy day incidentally flashing her underwear. | |
Xioden wrote:
Yes, sorry your one of the sheep who doesn't care about their privacy being violated. I'm very strong about civil liberties and rights. It's a good thing this isn't a rights violation, so I can keep saying this. "It's different so it's not the same". ... I would like to nominate this for the most useless, but true, statement ever uttered on these forums. It fails on so many levels. It fails as a damned rhetorical device, too, which is what you were aiming for. Sorry, but no. Strip searched in a room or stripped searched by a camera being viewed by a person is the same thing. Yes, they are. It's a good thing that this isn't what that is, though No, I'm saying exactly what I said. Well how about a high-five and a pat on the god damned head there, son! But I don't think you know what "insinuate" means. Because of the guise of security provided by this, people will bend over and take it. The fact of the matter is, they ARE nude for all intent and purposes. Except they aren't. Just because it's slightly blurred on the viewers end does mean they aren't going to crack jokes and point as the guy/women walks out. But they aren't blurred. Like, at all. You can't even make out body features. Unless it's changed from the last time I've heard of it, they are rendered cartoonishly. This is why I've been repeating this statement, kid. It's because it's not simple blurring. The TSA inspectors are more like trained monkey's than trained professionals after all. Because you know, if you actually were aware of how the technology was being utilized, the images are being viewed by a person, not a computer. Uh... I have doubts you know how it works, let alone is being utilized. A few places noted it was done by a person remotely, but when I was through one a couple years ago the monitor was about 3 feet from the scanner and in plain site of everyone about 10 feet back in the line. Yes, but you're just standing at it, not actually getting naked, and the image isn't seen by anyone. There are fundamental differences in this. More and more today people are willing to just bend over and take [...] Failed slippery slope statement. lol | |
I believe Pop made a very good point in [link] which you seem to have outright ignored: Flying on a plain is not a fundamental right or freedom, in most cases you could simply get into your virtual strip-search free automobile and drive where you are going.
| |
If I get piercings, it's pretty obvious I'm getting them because I want people too look at me, hence questioning why to feel embarrassed when looked at.
Your arguments so far have been pretty terrible. | |
Tiberath wrote:
Next you'll be complaining about security cameras being everywhere, and that they might just catch a shot of a woman wearing a skirt on a windy day incidentally flashing her underwear. BUT IT IS SERIOUS ISSUE FRIEND IF GOV'T ALLOWD 2 DO THAT NEXT U NO THEY TAKIN BABIES FROM WOMB 2 GRO SUPR SOLDIERS GLENN BECK TOLD ME THIS ITS JSUT KWESCHUN CAN ASK KWESCHUN FOX NEWS GLENN BECK LORD PRESIDENT BUSHHHHHHHH | |
Tiberath wrote:
Xioden wrote: All it takes is one defining feature. A real fat person, someone missing a limb, etc. That makes that person identifiable out of a crowd which is a potential privacy violation. It's the great thing about the law in the US, it doesn't have to ALWAYS be a rights violation, just in particular situations. It'll be the hot topic once they start getting regularly utilized. The one thing I can't find is if it will show tattoos or not... or if it will show say prison tattoos which will often have metal content. I can easily see various tattoos resulting in people being taken aside for additional search and inspections. Something like say a colostomy bag... That's something that I'm sure many people would rather keep on a need-to-know basis. Prior security methods wouldn't necessarily pick up on it, but someone with a "small satchel attached to the side of their persons containing an unknown odorous substance" who passes through the new machines would certainly also raise a number of flags. Seriously though.. People really miss the point people objecting to this are making. It's sort of like the "If you have nothing to hide..." justification thrown around. Sure, If I didn't actually do anything wrong I may as well, but the way people get railroaded for things... How many guilty people are walking the streets? How many innocent people are in jail? The law is far from perfect. You are perfectly free to do what you want. Personally I'll utilize the rights given to me by law, and I sure as hell will put up a fuss when they try and take them away. On a personal level, The "No clean feed" You've got linked on your blog. It's funny how you support that and I could throw the same arguments being said to me about that... "The filter will do almost nothing to prevent the people who are willfully making, trading, and accessing child sexual abuse material." But you know, it could stop a few! So it should be there! It's the perfect example about how the government says one thing and does another. The Clean feed was supposed to block child pornography, but it was already revealed that it was being used to block a number of other things. I mean come on, it's a good thing! It was for the children! But no, you're opposed to it now... Why? Worried it might end up being like the Great Firewall of China? Come on, it's only the government, they wouldn't possibly do anything like that. Now flash back to the new security machines. Sure, now it's only "just" being used in airports. But how long before it's being employed privately? Awesome! Walking into walmart get's my fully exposed self viewed by some mimimum wage walmart employee! What about in the future when technology such as this is employed elsewhere? Where do you draw the line and say "That's too far". Do we go for a 1984 style total control? Do we go for a Minority Report style "Pre-crime" where you can be found guilty of crimes you MAY commit in the future? You have to draw the line somewhere, some people are just doing that already while other people are oblivious to it happening at all under the guise of security. | |
Xioden wrote:
A set of images gets released Really? Hey did you know we're all actually naked under our clothes and that our clothes elicit the contours of our bodies? We all better start living inside uniform cylinders, lest we be identified and our liberties infringed. Life is already McDonaldized enough. You give me that non-conformist vibe. My favorite thing about non-conformists is that being non-conformist is being conformist to being non-conformist. Who's the sheep now? | |
I'll wait for you post to return before lecturing on the rest, but this one I'm going to keep as a memento. =D
Xioden wrote: On a personal level, The "No clean feed" You've got linked on your blog. It's funny how you support that and I could throw the same arguments being said to me about that... "The filter will do almost nothing to prevent the people who are willfully making, trading, and accessing child sexual abuse material." But you know, it could stop a few! So it should be there! Unfortunately it wont stop a few, it'll be lucky to stop a couple, at best, it'll inconvenience a couple. Torrents, P2P networks and other such major sources of sexually explicit content containing children aren't filtered by this system, it simply and only simply, takes out non-encrypted websites. I assure you, the FBI/FPA will most definitely take out non-encrypted child porn websites faster then this filter can be updated. Sorry, try again. | |
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=972_1262283908
There's some pretty obvious penis in the video. The results are graphic enough that, at least in the UK, they can not be used on under-18 year olds because it would be child porn. | |
So I'm under 18, if it can't be used on me due to that reason, I can just walk in with a bomb in my backpack? Cool, nice hypocrisy goin' on.
| |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
So I'm under 18, if it can't be used on me due to that reason, I can just walk in with a bomb in my backpack? Cool, nice hypocrisy goin' on. Obviously because they can't full body scan you means you can hide bombs in your backpack, right? Because they don't already x-ray and otherwise open/search all our luggage, right? Because there aren't numerous other ways to detect bombs and similar chemicals, right? What the hell are you talking about again? | |
Tiberath wrote:
I'll wait for you post to return before lecturing on the rest, but this one I'm going to keep as a memento. =D Side kinda poke fun tangent, but, seriously. How many serious threats have there been in the last couple years? The guy lighting his shoe, The guy a couple weeks ago... There were really not that many. On the other hand how many people had completely mundane objects confiscated? Nail clippers for example... If of an entire plane of people not one single person would be willing to stand up against a hijacking by nail clipper... "EVERYONE DOWN OR I'LL CUT YOUR CUTICLES SHORT AND MAKE IT SORTA HURT!!!" Okay we'll forgive the children.. But men and women..? Each and every one of them should be slapped silly for being such cowards. Also I guess sure, he could go MacGuyver on them... Nail clipper, some chewing gum.... =P | |
That doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, just that you can't have your possessions searched or taken by the government without a search warrant. Note government there. It is not a right to privacy, which is not, like I said, guaranteed.
Except the vast differences in implementation and how it works (like how what is being seen is being seen by a computer, and how your appearance is obscured, and how you're not nude, and etc.)
Oh, yes, the sheeple. I forgot about them.
Are you insinuate the government is trying to see people... not nude, so that they can just push to further take away their rights that aren't being violated? Do you realize how absolutely inane this sounds?
I feel I should point out to you that quoting an intelligent man doesn't cause his intelligence to rub off on you.