Remote panty-scanners closer than you think.... ----------------------------------------------- "U.S. Developing 'Remote Frisk' to Seek Weapons in a Crowd" Cox News Service (06/07/01); Emling, Shelley NLECTC Law Enforcement & Corrections\Copyright 2001, Information Inc., Bethesda, MD. Engineers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology's laboratories in Boulder, Colo., are developing a device that police might one day use to spot people carrying dangerous weapons in unruly crowds. While engineers will likely develop a working prototype by year's end, U.S. officials have no immediate plans for deploying the system. The National Institute of Justice and the Federal Aviation Administration is funding the development of the "remote frisk," and the agencies have already spent about $200,000 annually on the project over the past three years. News of the system comes during a growing concern over domestic terrorism, but it also raises concerns over the constitutionality of high-tech policing practices. Kristian Miccio at Western State University College of Law in California says that using high-tech devices among crowds is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, an issue similar to a recent Supreme Court ruling involving an Oregon man. Rebecca Trexler, an FAA spokeswoman, says the FAA has reservations about a scanner that could peer through clothing. NIST spokesman Fred McGehan states that the agencies hope the device would provide only a rough silhouette of the person's body. (www.coxnews.com) [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] I note that a sizable industry is dedicated to not only keeping my silhouette private through advanced camoflauge techniques, but also morphing it out of its natural proportion. Can it detect a body-bound knife? A grenade? A minute explosive device? A "push-up" bra? Does their "rough silhouette" subject me to the same exacting tracing knife as those reclining ladies on 18-wheeler mud flaps? (Is this blue paint?) ~Aimee
At 04:48 PM 6/16/2001 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
Remote panty-scanners closer than you think.... -----------------------------------------------
They are already here if you believe this site http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/applications.htm steve
At 04:48 PM 6/16/2001 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
Remote panty-scanners closer than you think.... -----------------------------------------------
They are already here if you believe this site http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/applications.htm
steve
Figures. X-ray-through-makeup-vision, too, hm? Cosmo has been alerted. ~Aimee
One Blanc (blancw@cnw.com) posted thus:
Cyber-anarchists don't wear panties.
It is nice that you saw fit to reply to our query. It is, however, well known that self-reporting produces the least accurate data[1] an so we are therefore inclined to discount your responses for the specific purpose of our study. This is of course by-the-by. Perhaps we were unclear in our original message. Our purpose at the present time is to obtain *third* party anecdotal accounts concerning the pantie question. After obtaining such, we propose to perform a detailed second-order analysis with an eye to formulating an intervention plan. (Our methodology will be explained in detail at such time as we publish our findings.) Since we have found that a subtle approach to intervention works best, you may in fact never be aware of our efforts, should it come to pass that we decide to help you become more comfortable with yourself. You may, in fact, simply find that one day your reticence to discussing matters concerning underwear in a definite and uninhibited manner will disappear. This will be the result of our contractor's hard work. You need not worry about a single thing; all this will be taken care of for you. You should in no wise take this to mean that we are uninterested in your feedback and opinions. We highly value your feelings and should you think it appropriate to express yourself, please feel free to do so at any time. We would like to thank you for your input and would like you to know we look forward to reading your comments in the future. Sincerely, Steve Thompson, PHd -- "We have a lot of work to do with our allies, but the common values here and the common agenda far outweigh policy differences that we have." -- Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor for President G. W. Bush. National Post 2001/06/12
participants (4)
-
Aimee Farr
-
Blanc
-
Steve Schear
-
Steve Thompson