PDA

View Full Version : Government caught in another lie - I'm shocked!



mamboni
4th August 2010, 09:11 AM
Government caught in another lie - surprise surprise!! In this day of government obsession with control and cheap mass storage of digital information, you can rest assured that no information is discarded deliberately, nothing! If it gets lost, it will be through incompetence - on that you can count. It is in actuality very hard to erase digital information once it is in "the system." Someone here posted an interesting exposee in phtocopier machines that have hard drives that store everything ever photocopied on the machine!


Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images
by Declan McCullagh Font size Print E-mail Share 21 comments Share 865diggsdigg
TSA's X-ray backscatter scanning with "privacy filter"

(Credit: TSA.gov) For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.

Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.

This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.

These "devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. "We think it's significant."

William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, acknowledged in the letter that "approximately 35,314 images...have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine" used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. In addition, Bordley wrote, a Millivision machine was tested in the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse but it was sent back to the manufacturer, which now apparently possesses the image database.

The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: "The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface."


TSA's millimeter wave body scan

(Credit: TSA.gov) This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners--and how they're being used in practice--is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else.

A 70-page document (PDF) showing the TSA's procurement specifications, classified as "sensitive security information," says that in some modes the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. (It also says that image filters will "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.")

"TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices," Rotenberg said. "This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion--I think it's outrageous." EPIC's lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches.

For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: "The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public


http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

jaybone
4th August 2010, 09:25 AM
Mamboni,
In your opinion, is it silly to be concerned about the safety of these scanners?
I will never pass through one on principle, but I wonder how many unprincipled sheeps are having their dna cleaved.

mamboni
4th August 2010, 09:31 AM
Mamboni,
In your opinion, is it silly to be concerned about the safety of these scanners?
I will never pass through one on principle, but I wonder how many unprincipled sheeps are having their dna cleaved.



Safety is a relative thing - what is considered 'safe' depends on one's tolerance of damage done. Some people think a sunburn is dangerous, others consider it trivial. IMHO, if these microwave scanners have enough penetrating energy to pass through clothing, then they likely have enough energy to do some damage to the superficial layers of the skin, perhaps low level DNA mutations or strand splits. Personally, I'm going nowhere near one of them. At this point in time, I will not fly!

Phoenix
4th August 2010, 09:38 AM
Everyone KNEW they were keeping the images.

chad
4th August 2010, 09:43 AM
everything digital is stored. that's the whole point of it being digital in the first place.

mamboni
4th August 2010, 09:53 AM
everything digital is stored. that's the whole point of it being digital in the first place.


Yep! I tell everyone that if they discard a PC hard drive, that unless they take a sledgehammer to it and shatter the disk(s) inside the digital information stored may be retrievable, even after reformatting and sector by sector multi-overwrites.

Awoke
4th August 2010, 09:54 AM
For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional:


Which "constitution" are they reading?

Phoenix
4th August 2010, 09:55 AM
For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional:


Which "constitution" are they reading?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union

Joe King
4th August 2010, 09:57 AM
For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional:


Which "constitution" are they reading?


The Commerce Clause of ours.

Awoke
4th August 2010, 10:01 AM
For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional:


Which "constitution" are they reading?


The Commerce Clause of ours.


Do you have a link? I'm not an American.

Phoenix
4th August 2010, 10:04 AM
For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional:


Which "constitution" are they reading?


The Commerce Clause of ours.


Do you have a link? I'm not an American.


He was being facetious.

The "commerce clause" is something the Federal regime uses to "justify" almost anything. However, the Fourth Amendment modified it with specific restriction on "unreasonable" searches.

mamboni
4th August 2010, 10:27 AM
In the interest of fair disclosure, I should point out that Janet Napolitano did undergo a total body scan herself.

Apparition
4th August 2010, 10:38 AM
And so the surveillance-police state continues to expand itself.

I wonder how much it'll expand when the dollar collapses and some of the sheeple begin to realize that there isn't a benevolent welfare state as they believed.

mamboni
4th August 2010, 10:46 AM
And so the surveillance-police state continues to expand itself.



...just like Janet Napolitano's thighs. :oo-->

Phoenix
4th August 2010, 12:59 PM
In the interest of fair disclosure, I should point out that Janet Napolitano did undergo a total body scan herself.




:sicko

TheNocturnalEgyptian
4th August 2010, 01:15 PM
Agreed; but at the time, we were called "Crazy" for saying so!

Isn't that always the way?




Everyone KNEW they were keeping the images.

1970 silver art
4th August 2010, 04:10 PM
WHAT!!!!! The gov't lied?!?!?!?! No way. The gov't NEVER lies. :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc: :sarc:

1970 silver art
4th August 2010, 04:16 PM
In the interest of fair disclosure, I should point out that Janet Napolitano did undergo a total body scan herself.




QUICK!!!!!!! Somebody give me a barf bag. :o

:ROFL:

mightymanx
4th August 2010, 04:36 PM
Government telling the truth would be far more shocking a headline.

Glass
4th August 2010, 04:47 PM
Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: "The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface."

IF they are searching for weapons and IF one is discovered WHO is going to arrest the person? There won't be anyone there? So clearly remote usage is for surveilence not for crime prevention.

oldmansmith
4th August 2010, 05:18 PM
Personally, I'm going nowhere near one of them. At this point in time, I will not fly!


I'm glad that i'm not the only one. I feel all woozy when I think about flying now. F-em. Let Rome implode.

Miteysquirrel
4th August 2010, 05:44 PM
Having been in the Army and showering with 50 guys...or peeing 3 guys to a urinal, kinda makes me feel immune to this kind of overstepping people rights...but I can sure see how it will make people angry and violated.


Is there anything positive this government of ours does? It seems not.

Saul Mine
4th August 2010, 07:59 PM
Has there been an update on the charges of kiddie porn? I thought that was a really interesting development, although I don't quite understand why nobody objected to the adult porn. I for one simply refuse to fly as long as it involves some creep searching me without a warrant.

ximmy
4th August 2010, 08:00 PM
someone is measuring and recording your pee-pees

Korbin Dallas
4th August 2010, 08:12 PM
And so the surveillance-police state continues to expand itself.



...just like Janet Napolitano's thighs. :oo-->


Soda just shot out my nose, LMFAO! ;D ;D ;D

Joe King
4th August 2010, 08:37 PM
For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional:


Which "constitution" are they reading?


The Commerce Clause of ours.


Do you have a link? I'm not an American.


He was being facetious. No, I wasn't.

The "commerce clause" is something the Federal regime uses to "justify" almost anything. However, the Fourth Amendment modified it with specific restriction on "unreasonable" searches.

Your statement is correct only in that the scanners have not yet been held to be "unreasonable" under the 4th Amendment.
If the search isn't unreasonable, the 4th doesn't apply, and it can only be found to be unreasonable if/when challenged in Court.

Has the use of these scanners been challenged in Court yet?

Phoenix
4th August 2010, 08:41 PM
Your statement is correct only in that the scanners have not yet been held to be "unreasonable" under the 4th Amendment.
If the search isn't unreasonable, the 4th doesn't apply, and it can only be found to be unreasonable if/when challenged in Court.

Has the use of these scanners been challenged in Court yet?


For some reason, you look to "judges" for a definition of the Fourth Amendment. I, on the other hand, look to the authors: the Founding Fathers.