| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2005 05:22:56 PM · #76 |
| ho geez, I ask a simple question and you guys pick up on a two-week old argument.... |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:40:06 PM · #77 |
A few years ago (2001) I was flying out to go on a cruise and at the time I had a film camera... I was told that I could request that my rolls of film be put in the little basket so that they didn't get ruined. When I got to security, I politely asked if I could do this and this grouchy old fart gave me a hard time asking why it was so important that I don't run my film through the Xray machine. I told him that it could ruin my film and he started getting bitchy. He told me that I had to run it through to be checked. Again, I explained this to him and he said if I didn't like it, he would check the rolls by hand - meaning he would rip all the film out of the canisters to check it!!!! I couldn't believe it! So I had no choice but to let it through the xray machine. I was so upset! Luckily nothing happened to my film. But on the way home, I wrapped it well in my clothes.
Ugh!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 05:53:31 PM · #78 |
That's when you call for a manager....obviously, he was a poorly trained professional as every airport I've gone to they caution against putting film thru the x-ray.
*ponder* |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:02:15 PM · #79 |
| I believe the vast majority of commercial film is unaffected by x-ray. It's specialized film like ISO 3200 or other rare birds which run a risk. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:03:53 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "mpemberton":
So being an idiotic adult about this is your argument? Really, an exception to the norm. On who's authority? Sorry to see that the security of children is such an inconvenience to you. |
Lame...lame...lame....
Of course the safety of children is a concern to me. Many children die in car crashes. Should we ban children from being in a car? Of course not...
But we can take reasonable precautions (seatbelts, safe driving, etc.)
Likewise, one does not catch fish by sweeping a butterfly net thru the air. Nor does one catch butterflies by casting their fishing line into the ocean.
So if I am investing $100 into two different protective measures. In the first case, the $100 dollars saves 67 lives. And in the second case one life was saved and a great number were inconvenienced unnecessarily. I'd rather invest $200 in the first method. Especially, since it has the likelihood of capturing the second method's "1" offender as well. And to do such with little to no inconvenience to innoncent parties.
That's all, I just want intelligence. There is a reason the wheels on our cars are round. Flat wheels would be better for breaking thus making safer cars - however, they are not efficient nor reasonable choices for tires. |
Back on topic, child pornography and molesting of children should be halted, if it means some inconvenience, so be it. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:14:47 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by "mpemberton":
Back on topic, child pornography and molesting of children should be halted, if it means some inconvenience, so be it.
|
Agreed...
However, when it poses severe inconvenience and minimal return on investment. And there are MUCH MUCH BETTER MEANS. I'd rather invest our $$$ in systems that will save 100x times the lives and no inconvenience.
The fact we expended the money in the airport to simply stop a guy with a camera or a laptop. And did not spend it hitting the blatant and obvious websites that are propagating such material - I must ask WHY we wasted money on such an inefficient method when there are proven much better methods.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 06:16:24 PM · #82 |
| Have to agree with you there Saj... |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 07:06:38 PM · #83 |
In the future you could rename all your photos a different extension. Instead of .JPG something like .DAT or .BAK
Or maybe zip all the photos and rename the .ZIP |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 07:16:16 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by jadin:
In the future you could rename all your photos a different extension. Instead of .JPG something like .DAT or .BAK
Or maybe zip all the photos and rename the .ZIP |
That's the real issue to me - It's not effective. The foot sloggers in this don't know enough to find anything from somebody hiding it in the first place. First it's not the transport mechinism I would use anyway (there are FAR better way to xmit files you want nobody to see) but simple stuff like changing the attribute to hidden or the extension in window$ would no doubt avoid these guys finding anything - there are far more effective measure then this stuff. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 07:21:59 PM · #85 |
I think US is worse, i remember they searched even the Indian defense minisiter. The way they treat asians is worse than you have described.
Originally posted by woutje:
Maybe I'm starting to take this thread as a little too personally, but I'm a little concerned at the responses.
Customs agents in Canada have less authority to hold and detain people that their counterparts from the US. In this case, while unfortunate, they do have the right to investigate and search belongings. As in the example of Mr. Pasdeck from Illinois that DrAchoo provided, it is known that deviants try to smuggle child porn material across the border.
So in this case, there was nothing found. But what if it were the reverse situation ... A customs agent finds a laptop with thousands of images but decides not to search it and as a result, thousands of child porn images are not found ... then to me, that is worse than detaining someone for a couple of hours.
Again, I'm sorry that innocent individuals are inconvenienced.
However, let's keep in mind that this is not a Canada only thing. I'm sure that many think it's fine that I was searched in Boston. I'm also sure that many believe it was okay to totally unpack all my belongings in San Jose without any concern for how it was all going to get back together. I personally didn't question it despite the personal violation and inconvience. That's American National Security and that is important.
Well, there are policies and procedures that a Canada custom's official is governed by and apparently this situation raised a flag and someone had to sit around for 2 hours. It's not fun, but it's understandable given the state of the world! |
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 07:24:30 PM · #86 |
You can put them in one folder zip them and then change the extension of the file from zip to some system file or like .txt so any attempt to open it will open wordpad and that is more irritating. I personally would put only one picture showing a banner "looking for something hot. I thought so" .
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by jadin:
In the future you could rename all your photos a different extension. Instead of .JPG something like .DAT or .BAK
Or maybe zip all the photos and rename the .ZIP |
That's the real issue to me - It's not effective. The foot sloggers in this don't know enough to find anything from somebody hiding it in the first place. First it's not the transport mechinism I would use anyway (there are FAR better way to xmit files you want nobody to see) but simple stuff like changing the attribute to hidden or the extension in window$ would no doubt avoid these guys finding anything - there are far more effective measure then this stuff. |
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 07:33:17 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I believe the vast majority of commercial film is unaffected by x-ray. It's specialized film like ISO 3200 or other rare birds which run a risk. |
All film is affected by X-Rays, it's just a matter of degree.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 11:59:36 AM EDT.
