Testicle Stroking Agency: Had your balls cupped yet?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'm flying tomorrow, 50/50 I'll be asked to go through a scanner. I will decline, and as a local law enforcement officer to be present and witness it, along with in full view of a recording camera (and I'll have my phone recording). I will be exceedingly polite, but if my testicles and/or penis are touched, I will notify the law enforcement officer that it occurred against my will, I feel I have been sexually assaulted, and let him/her decide what to do next.

DA promises to prosecute overly touchy pat downsWe are not powerless over our federal overlords, fact is we empower them.

Even better, go through the scanner and then demand a copy of your tape "for the kids".

Excellent sig quote by the way. Exactly how I feel.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
OK - I didn't locate any pictures when I first searched ... Those are some Old Pictures that you cannot tell anything about who much less make out any details.

I'm not progressive BTW I am a registered republican. Just one that isn't paranoid about radiation and frisking.

There is a difference between frisking ( even agressive frisking ) and sexually molesting someone.

As for the Back Scatter machine and radiation here are the actual facts:
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...tsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm

The established standard for radiation exposure for the general public from man-made, non-medical sources is 1,000 µSv (microsieverts) per year. One microsievert is one millionth of a sievert, and if you’re familiar with the now-outdated measure of rem, a sievert is 1/100 of a rem, so these are tiny little numbers.

Since it’s not possible to control all sources of radiation exposure, the general rule is to try to keep it under 250 µSv per year from sources that can be controlled. For a radiation-emitting machine to be considered “general use,” as the backscatter machines are required to be by TSA, it has to emit 1,000 times less than the 250 µSv limit for each use, or 0.25 µSv. The backscatter machines have passed that in every test. In fact, it appears that the machines actually emit 0.05 µSv per use. That means that a person could go through the machine 13 times a day for every day of the year and still not have exceeded the limit.

But there was also concern that since the exposure is primarily focused on the skin, that could be a problem area even if the general exposure was not. According to the letter, the annual dose limit for skin exposure is 50,000 µSv per year. Even if the machines emitted the required 0.25 µSv (higher than what it actually is), it would take nearly 250 exposures per day to reach the skin limit.
Fair enough. I'm tempted to call shens at you being registered Republican, but I'll take you at your word.

Do you understand the difference between concentrated doses and uniform doses. The backscatter machines give you a dose that is concentrated primarily in your skin tissue.

Over your entire body, sure that amount of radiation means nothing. However, having it just in the skin tissue presents an unknown.

ALL of the studies are years old. VERY little research has been done to evaluate the safety except to say, "well, it is below this limit we set years ago so it must be safe". The difference is how the radiation is applied.

Don't you find it a little fishy that the person selling these machines used to be the head of TSA?

Hah, I WISH that was fishy. Instead it's business as usual.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,620
4,675
136
Do you understand the difference between concentrated doses and uniform doses. The backscatter machines give you a dose that is concentrated primarily in your skin tissue.

Over your entire body, sure that amount of radiation means nothing. However, having it just in the skin tissue presents an unknown.

ALL of the studies are years old. VERY little research has been done to evaluate the safety except to say, "well, it is below this limit we set years ago so it must be safe". The difference is how the radiation is applied.

Don't you find it a little fishy that the person selling these machines used to be the head of TSA?

It isn't old and the skin issue was addressed in the study: You're reading skills are lacking.
But there was also concern that since the exposure is primarily focused on the skin, that could be a problem area even if the general exposure was not. According to the letter, the annual dose limit for skin exposure is 50,000 µSv per year. Even if the machines emitted the required 0.25 µSv (higher than what it actually is), it would take nearly 250 exposures per day to reach the skin limit.

To quit playing the devils advocate for a while.

I would not want to be frisked either. That being said there is nothing wrong with the scanners. Except for someone knowing how small your penis is. :)

I do wonder how many in this thread would be raising holy hell IF a bomber got on a plane with their family on it and blew it up. ( God forbid that this happens ). What would you say? Oh Well shit happens? I think many would be ready to sue the crap out of the airlines for " Allowing " this to happen.

Tell me what is your take on this.
 
Last edited:

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
You all whine and whine about getting your "testicles stroked."

But as soon as some new terror attack occurs, and Americans die, you'll be crying in fear and ready to lick not only the testicles, but the boots of politicians to "keep you safe."

The TSA is damned if they search and damned if they don't, and are erring on the side of saving American lives and catching Muslim fanatics. Isn't that what you want?

You demand more security, and for the government to "protect you" from Al Qaeda. You demand aggressive tactics against others, "the browns," the "muzzies and hajis": telephone tapping, internet watching, house doors kicked in, mosques watched, drone missile strikes, and now thorough frisking at airports.

But only when you are personally inconvenienced do you whine and whine.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
It isn't old and the skin issue was addressed in the study: You're reading skills are lacking.
But there was also concern that since the exposure is primarily focused on the skin, that could be a problem area even if the general exposure was not. According to the letter, the annual dose limit for skin exposure is 50,000 µSv per year. Even if the machines emitted the required 0.25 µSv (higher than what it actually is), it would take nearly 250 exposures per day to reach the skin limit.

To quit playing the devils advocate for a while.

I would not want to be frisked either. That being said there is nothing wrong with the scanners. Except for someone knowing how small your penis is. :)

I do wonder how many in this thread would be raising holy hell IF a bomber got on a plane with their family on it and blew it up. ( God forbid that this happens ). What would you say? Oh Well shit happens? I think many would be ready to sue the crap out of the airlines for " Allowing " this to happen.

Tell me what is your take on this.

My take is that we still have that exact same risk and I really hope we aren't willing to go so far as to eliminate the one that has already been used by terrorists, so whats the fucking point?

Nothing in life is risk free but over the last 10 years 4K have been killed on US soil by terrorists. How can you possibly say that this isn't extreme to prevent something that is damn near statistically impossible to happen to your family and mine?

To add a bit of perspective, your bathtub is a much larger threat to your families life than terrorists are so I propose that your bathtub should be inspected by TSA before each and every use and when they get into the tub the TSA should be standing there reading them the instructions for the drain and faucets as well as giving them safety tips like make sure you put your head above the water when you need to breathe. Sure its intrusive and maybe it will make your wife and kids a little uneasy but for gods sake man would you think about the children!!!

That would save more lives and remove a bigger threat to American lives (at least in the US).
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,620
4,675
136
My take is that we still have that exact same risk and I really hope we aren't willing to go so far as to eliminate the one that has already been used by terrorists, so whats the fucking point?

Nothing in life is risk free but over the last 10 years 4K have been killed on US soil by terrorists. How can you possibly say that this isn't extreme to prevent something that is damn near statistically impossible to happen to your family and mine?

To add a bit of perspective, your bathtub is a much larger threat to your families life than terrorists are so I propose that your bathtub should be inspected by TSA before each and every use and when they get into the tub the TSA should be standing there reading them the instructions for the drain and faucets as well as giving them safety tips like make sure you put your head above the water when you need to breathe. Sure its intrusive and maybe it will make your wife and kids a little uneasy but for gods sake man would you think about the children!!!

That would save more lives and remove a bigger threat to American lives (at least in the US).

I think it would be fine to do away with the TSA Scanners at airports as long as everyone would sign a waiver to not be allowed to sue the airlines when one does blow the plane up.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Who do people think will be singled out for "extra screening"? The angry young Middle Eastern male? The Star Wars extra in the burlap bag? Those are exactly the people who will sue your ass off, using the power and influence of CAIR. Nah, those singled out for "extra screening" will be the safe ones - Anglo men, old women, children, blonds with nice racks.

Our biggest problem is that we refuse to admit our enemy has a name and a religion. Instead, we've declared war on inanimate objects. All the terrorists have to do is continue trying new and novel objects and places to hide them, and they can hide in plain sight. Even an angry young Muslim male who is on the UK's never fly list, whose father actually contacted the CIA to let them know his son was a radical who intended to blow up an airliner for Allah, is beyond our capacity to stop. Meanwhile we're groping grannies and taking nail clippers from pilots for fear they will seize control of the plane - notwithstanding that is their job.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I think it would be fine to do away with the TSA Scanners at airports as long as everyone would sign a waiver to not be allowed to sue the airlines when one does blow the plane up.

Personally I think the threat of lawsuit would make the airlines take reasonable measures to protect their passengers and property. It would also allow passengers to choose not to fly a certain airline depending on the security of that airline. I guarantee that most passengers would be more than willing to sign a waiver to not sue as long as reasonable measures are taken and they aren't made to do dumb shit to get on the plane. Common sense stuff like reinforced and locked cockpit doors should stay in place regardless.

But if it came down to one or the other, I would definitely take the no TSA flight. The risk is absurdly below anything we would begin to consider "acceptable". When it gets riskier to fly than it is to take a bath in my own bathtub, get back to me.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Who do people think will be singled out for "extra screening"? The angry young Middle Eastern male? The Star Wars extra in the burlap bag? Those are exactly the people who will sue your ass off, using the power and influence of CAIR. Nah, those singled out for "extra screening" will be the safe ones - Anglo men, old women, children, blonds with nice racks.

Our biggest problem is that we refuse to admit our enemy has a name and a religion. Instead, we've declared war on inanimate objects. All the terrorists have to do is continue trying new and novel objects and places to hide them, and they can hide in plain sight. Even an angry young Muslim male who is on the UK's never fly list, whose father actually contacted the CIA to let them know his son was a radical who intended to blow up an airliner for Allah, is beyond our capacity to stop. Meanwhile we're groping grannies and taking nail clippers from pilots for fear they will seize control of the plane - notwithstanding that is their job.

The part that really blows my mind is that we have people in this country defending those practices. Even better, somehow I am the paranoid one for not being scared enough of the ebul terrorists who are less likely to cause me harm than damn near everything else I do in my day to day life. Do we have statistics on how many people die while checking their mail every year? If we do, I bet it is at least close to the threat of being killed by a terrorist on US soil. It is insane how much greater of a risk driving is but we allow anyone who is semi-retarded and above to get a license and drive with relatively little hassle but if you want to get on a plane you, for absolutely no reason at all, can be subjected to a custody search (that would be a search that the police can do only AFTER they arrest you for a crime, not the simple pat down if you get pulled over).
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
lol @ Front Page Drudge

tsa3.jpg
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,620
4,675
136
lol @ Front Page Drudge

tsa3.jpg

IN all honesty you cannot see what his hand is doing nor exactly where it is. I saw all of these pics on TV today too and I didn't see anything or anyone actually getting " Sexually molested ".
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
IN all honesty you cannot see what his hand is doing nor exactly where it is. I saw all of these pics on TV today too and I didn't see anything or anyone actually getting " Sexually molested ".

lol, those pants are just tucking in by themselves.

TSA screener = pervert's dream job.


fuck now I'm tempted to become a TSA screener. uNf unF uNF
 
Last edited:

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,885
1,098
126
Fuck that. It's not like it's going to do anything. If a terrorist shoves some chemical up his ass, how are they going to find that?

Can we please just use common sense and just target young arab males and females. I'm sorry if that offends the 99.9% of them that are decent people, but the world is unfair. Better to annoy them than everyone.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
You all whine and whine about getting your "testicles stroked."

But as soon as some new terror attack occurs, and Americans die, you'll be crying in fear and ready to lick not only the testicles, but the boots of politicians to "keep you safe."

The TSA is damned if they search and damned if they don't, and are erring on the side of saving American lives and catching Muslim fanatics. Isn't that what you want?

You demand more security, and for the government to "protect you" from Al Qaeda. You demand aggressive tactics against others, "the browns," the "muzzies and hajis": telephone tapping, internet watching, house doors kicked in, mosques watched, drone missile strikes, and now thorough frisking at airports.

But only when you are personally inconvenienced do you whine and whine.

Actually, there are quite a few of us who think all of that is bullshit.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
IN all honesty you cannot see what his hand is doing nor exactly where it is. I saw all of these pics on TV today too and I didn't see anything or anyone actually getting " Sexually molested ".

Even the TSA agent looks like he is thinking "what the fuck was I thinking when I took this job, I wonder if Wallmart is still hiring".

And what he is doing is called a custody search and yes you can tell from the picture.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Can we please just use common sense and just target young arab males and females. I'm sorry if that offends the 99.9% of them that are decent people, but the world is unfair. Better to annoy them than everyone.

If you're not willing to be subject to something to increase your safety, then you should not ask someone else to be subject to it.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
If you're not willing to be subject to something to increase your safety, then you should not ask someone else to be subject to it.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read on here in minutes.

You, sir, deserve to be thrown in prison.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
If you're not willing to be subject to something to increase your safety, then you should not ask someone else to be subject to it.

They are trying to make us safe from muslim extremists. That grandpa in the wheelchair ain't blown shit up, when they start blowing shit up then feel free to single them out too.

Even batshit crazy Christians aren't blowing up planes, if you want to single them out at abortion clinics that would be fine by me.
 

Circlenaut

Platinum Member
Mar 22, 2001
2,175
5
81
Man next time I go through one of these security checkpoints I'll make sure to have a boner and get a female agent. I'll make sure she does a thorough screening for any suspicious packages.