As we’ve stated from the beginning, TSA has not, will not and the machines cannot store images of passengers at airports. The equipment sent by the manufacturer to airports cannot store, transmit or print images and operators at airports do not have the capability to activate any such function.
Feel free to read a post from earlier this year: Advanced Imaging Technology: Storing, Exporting and Printing of Images You can also read all of our other AIT related posts dating back to 2008 here. Our imaging technology page at www.TSA.gov has been updated as well.
Also, please note that the US Marshal Service falls under the Department of Justice, not under the Department of Homeland Security.
***Update - 12:00 - 8/6/2010***
The U.S. Marshals Service has issued a press release to clarify recent stories about the scanners they use. You can read it here.
 |
| U.S. Marshals Service Press Release |
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
203 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 203 of 203I heard that you won't be ablet to opt out of a full body scan, stating the beginning of next year-2011. Is this true?
How do you explain the image of the Bay Watch woman being shown in the internet? If the image couldn't be stored or printed, how is this possible to circulate?
It doesn't really matter if the machines have storage capabilities. They have to have RAM to operate at all. Under certain circumstances data can be recovered from the RAM of any computer during maintenance. Even if the data is not recovered when it comes to laws regarding child porn it doesn't matter how long the image existed. The FBI has argued in a number of cases that it doesn't matter how long the images remained on the computer.
By your logic pedophiles would be able to get around child porn laws by using RAM only devices to view such images and therefore escape responsibility. In reality the FBI does not define child porn as requiring a hard storage device. If it did it would be really easy to program a system to store images in RAM long term for as long as there is a continuous flow of power.
Child nudity in and of itself does not constitute child porn, it usually is dependent on community standards. It would really be impossible for me to say it would count as child porn everywhere, but it would count as child porn in many areas.
When the UK faced this issue that made children under 18 exempt from these procedures for these very reasons.
Post a Comment