Pornoscanner advisory flier

Discuss

9 Responses to “Pornoscanner advisory flier”

  1. Joe says:

    “ThÂŒese images may be the Ivy League nude posture images of our generation.”

    This is a concept I’m not familiar with. Can anyone fill me in?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Yes, because what the airline security situation needs is MORE FEARMONGERING.

    • Zac says:

      I think that’s EXACTLY what this situation needs actually. How else will they learn that these sort of expensive, ineffective, privacy-trampling are not acceptable? You’ve got to rub their nose in it. It is the only way.

  3. johnphantom says:

    “Yes, because what the airline security situation needs…”

    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    B. Franklin, founding father.

  4. Tim says:

    It’s irresponsible to create such a flier and have it include “health risks due to x-rays” as a legitimate concern; the general consensus is that they aren’t, and several physicists and experts in radiation have covered it extensively. Apparently one group on San Francisco disagrees, but all others say ‘they’re harmless’. Using that as a fighting point only lessens the credulity of the argument.

    By all means, raise hell about the privacy issues; but don’t try and claim the x-ray exposure is a health risk, unless you also hate Dentists who take x-rays, since you get significantly more from them.

    • cmacis says:

      My dentist gives me a lead apron for my goolies when I have a dental x-ray. And he only does them when absolutely necessary. And I have the option to opt-out of it, or seek a 2nd opinion, without him grabbing said goolies.

      Frankly, until someone walks through the pr0nscanner with some sort of measuring device, we won’t know exactly how much radiation is involved. Though if someone is planning that, make sure it uploads its data immediately. They will seize it if they can.

    • Anonymous says:

      There is one article available, which is not by an MD (so I discount his conclusions on medical harm). The article is an estimate of radiation dosages that makes a number of assumptions about how the scanners work, but at no point does it have a direct measurement. The estimate (which is conservative at best) is 5-10 x the dose put out by the TSA.
      There is no known safe dose for women of childbearing age and children. Period.

  5. Anonymous says:

    No one has proven they are safe or dangerous. All of this ado seems to be about the notion of being scanned and the possibility that someone might see a blurry shot of your gonads.

    Okay fine. Refuse to go through the scanner. But then you have to agree to a pat down. Refuse that and you won’t be allowed to the gate and your flight.

    Now folks are saying “of course I”m going to refuse to be felt up” but honestly. How many folks fly every day. And how many of those folks are reporting that they were groped, fingered or whatever else. Very few. Trouble is that those few were mouthy about it and the media picked it up and has made it seem like the TSA is hiring known sex offenders for all their check points just for the kick of everyone getting a near rape grope every time they want to fly.

Leave a Reply