EPTNaked Scanner - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
lakrismamma
Sweden543 Posts
On October 15 2009 17:44 nttea wrote: goddamn what's wrong with people, there's real privacy issues. Someone seeing you naked on an airport scanner is not really one of them. Agreed.. | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27179 Posts
On October 15 2009 17:31 RoyW wrote: The reason I believe the claim can be dismissed is because it somehow insinuates that a goal of 'terrorists' is inconvenience of general population when doing something, or for governments to have to spend money on security. This, to me, shows a complete lack of understanding to why terrorist organisations exist, or why individual terrorists operate. I also believe that framing any view on terrorism in general as 'taking our liberties is what they want' is very counter-productive to any long term resolution and a complete mischaracterisation of the complex causes of world-wide terrorism. It's a very convenient way to completely dismiss why such situations may arise. The thought process "hmm, why are there people willing to commit intinuitively horrendous acts such as blow up planes - ahh they must see our 'freedoms' and want to take them away" just seems to be so obviously flawed that it boggles me that otherwise intelligent people can come to such a sound-bite conclusion. The goal of terrorists in general is to achieve their goals through the use of fear, or terror. Thus the name. Causing governments to turn flying into a fearful exercise shows the success of their methods. Flying now compared to twenty years ago is a very different experience, but I digress. Some particular terrorists have the goal of weakening and eventually overthrowing the United States and the western world in general. Having to spend resources on things like this also helps accomplish their goal. Maintaining heightened security maintains the legacy of their actions as well. Also, I never painted this The thought process "hmm, why are there people willing to commit intinuitively horrendous acts such as blow up planes - ahh they must see our 'freedoms' and want to take them away" as the full picture of what terrorists wished to gain. I simply observed that in my opinion, these types of changes contribute to the larger picture of what terrorists seek to accomplish, and they haven't had to do anything further to get it. They are a by product of past attacks which give additional value to their previous deeds unnecessarily.Kindly don't make broad assumptions about what I write, and don't insult my intelligence when I haven't insulted yours. edit- And I am going to edit about the idea of nakedness and shame. I think you didn't quite get my point. I do not consider this a shame of being naked. I have no problem with it in other situations. I just do not believe that airports and airline companies are in a position to demand nakedness from customers. It has less to do with shame and more to do with control over ones body. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 15 2009 22:25 IdrA wrote: as is comparing having a rough outline of your body exposed to cutting people open to look for explosives. So all your posts about that line we discussed was to illustrate the outlandishness of my example of surgically implanted dangers? Job well done sir. I accept. My example was as far-fetched as yours. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
You think near nude scanning of people will be the favorable security measure? lol | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
everyone goes through a metal detector because all they have to do is walk through it, everyone doesnt get patted down because its even more time and labor consuming than the rest of the security process. substituting another machine for that, so we can check everyone for nonmetallic threats, is obviously favorable. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 15 2009 22:39 IdrA wrote: no i said forcing them to be ok with gambling that we'll pat down the guy who happens to carry an explosive everyone goes through a metal detector because all they have to do is walk through it, everyone doesnt get patted down because its even more time and labor consuming than the rest of the security process. substituting another machine for that, so we can check everyone for nonmetallic threats, is obviously favorable. How many airplanes have been blown up from non metallic explosives? Now weigh that against every single passenger who rides a plane and you have a grossly outweighed scale. Now I don't want to hear "if it saves 1 plane it is worth it" because that would assume that the system in place failed and so far it hasn't. At some point we need to value our privacy over ultimate assurance that a possible scenario maybe never happens. | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 15 2009 22:47 IdrA wrote: if it saves 1 plane it is worth it and that doesn't assume the system in place has failed, just that it is capable of failing. and obviously it is, as not every person who goes through, not even a high percentage, are checked for non metallic explosives. The scanner is capable of failing too. Everything with a human being involved is capable of failing. You are arguing that the increased chance of the overall system not failing is worth the intrusion of every single passengers privacy every single flight ever for a scenario that has never happened. It is ludicrous. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On October 15 2009 15:33 armed_ wrote: If you're drawing comparisons between being seen nude and 1984, you are vastly misunderstanding one of the two. I'd say you are the one misunderstanding. Everytime we give up some of our privacy, of our integrity, to help win some far away "war" (on terror) we move an inch closer to Orwell's dystopia. They can already listen to all your phone calls, read all your mails and at least in parts of England you are on real time surveillance the second you step out of your house. Now they want to take away yet another thing that actually matters to a lot of people, the privacy of the naked body. It's all moving in a very unpleasant direction and I don't think it's a none issue. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 15 2009 22:47 IdrA wrote: if it saves 1 plane it is worth it and that doesn't assume the system in place has failed, just that it is capable of failing. and obviously it is, as not every person who goes through, not even a high percentage, are checked for non metallic explosives. So a one in a million chance of prevention is worth scanning everyone? How do you step foot outside your door? You might get struck dead by lightning. There are rational and irrational responses to small risks. Wanting everyone to get scanned by fulfill your irrational response, but don't impose that on me or anyone else. edit: Actually I can only really hope that this is not true in the future. The world is quite stupid with making airline passengers jump through silly hoops for the illusion of safety. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 15 2009 22:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote: The scanner is capable of failing too. Everything with a human being involved is capable of failing. You are arguing that the increased chance of the overall system not failing is worth the intrusion of every single passengers privacy every single flight ever for a scenario that has never happened. It is ludicrous. lol ya the chances of someone not noticing a bomb on an unclothed body arent a big step up from scanning every 1 in 10 people going on a plane. ludicrous indeed. your privacy is already being intruded upon. its a matter of degrees and this is not nearly as big a step up as you're making it out to be. you're not doing a strip show for the entire plane. one guard is viewing your body as if it were a clothing mannequin for a few seconds before the image is permanently deleted. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 15 2009 22:54 IdrA wrote: lol ya the chances of someone not noticing a bomb on an unclothed body arent a big step up from scanning every 1 in 10 people going on a plane. ludicrous indeed. your privacy is already being intruded upon. its a matter of degrees and this is not nearly as big a step up as you're making it out to be. you're not doing a strip show for the entire plane. one guard is viewing your body as if it were a clothing mannequin for a few seconds before the image is permanently deleted. greg I don't mean to be mean but if you conversed with women on even a semi regular basis I think you'd have a better scope of what is at stake. For you and me it isn't a big deal at all. For your mother, grandmother, sister and others.. that man over by the wall catching a glimpse of their undergarments and perhaps breast outline IS a big deal. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 15 2009 22:56 {88}iNcontroL wrote: greg I don't mean to be mean but if you conversed with women on even a semi regular basis I think you'd have a better scope of what is at stake. For you and me it isn't a big deal at all. For your mother, grandmother, sister and others.. that man over by the wall catching a glimpse of their undergarments and perhaps breast outline IS a big deal. Especially true, considering the average sleaziness quotient of your airport security official. Don't put any valuables in checked luggage. It'll get stolen. And those men hiding behind the wall just love harassing women during the security check. | ||
|
RoyW
Ireland270 Posts
I do feel it's a shame people seem to have an invasive issue with this, but what of you free-marketers out there? Surely if airports should implement it if it's in their interest and the free-market will produce an airliner that will cater for those who have a problem!! | ||
|
Ho0ps
United Kingdom216 Posts
| ||
|
HeaDStrong
Scotland785 Posts
On October 15 2009 23:11 RoyW wrote: I think it's a impressive piece of technology, and should be implemented by airliners/airports if they deem it to be more cost effective from a time and money perspective. Ultimately, though, if people are uncomfortable with it they should be offered an alternative feel -up. I do feel it's a shame people seem to have an invasive issue with this, but what of you free-marketers out there? Surely if airports should implement it if it's in their interest and the free-market will produce an airliner that will cater for those who have a problem!! lol, i began to write exactly the same thing and then saw your post. i mean its totally up to the airlines and airports to make this decision to implement this. dont like their terms? - dont fly with them. but for sure they wont do such a thing if it would greatly reduce income because of customers being not satisfied. | ||
| ||
