Naked Scanner - Page 8

On October 16 2009 08:55 ItchReliever wrote:
given how it's still so fucking easy to smuggle shit in through, government is probably paying off bin laden or some dude to not hijack our planes again. this new technology is pretty kewl but is obviously against our culture for most people but i think some kind of change needs to happen like hiring security guards in planes or something so we can finally stop paying off bin laden

On October 16 2009 08:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


No.

He was arguing framework and intent behind posts through philosophic analysis and assumption and making a side argument that my (and others) opinions are merely subject of sexist principles enforced by societal conditioning etc.. That is all "related" to this subject but when you make it the drive of your post you are getting away from "experimental scanners in airports" and more to "society makes us uncomfortable with out bodies."

On October 16 2009 09:07 RoyW wrote:



I'm not continuing along those lines. Serious question: Am I breaking the 'give it a rest' order by pointing out that your argument is 'this wont fly with women - trust me I know women, and those who do not share this opinion, I believe they do not.'? I am using this as my basis for my point.

I can honestly say with sufficient familiarity with women, however, that this would not be anywhere near as much of an issue with the women I do know, whether it be my mother, her sisters of the same generation, or my girlfriend or any of my mid-twenties female peers. Maybe it's a cultural thing, I'm not sure, but where I come from and have lived - in wales/germany and sweden - there isn't this perception of discomfort with nakedness, and there isn't this great difference between men and women that you may revere.

On October 16 2009 09:10 TanGeng wrote:
A standard pat down is still an invasion of privacy. Why do people consider pat downs and feel-ups are now par for the course?

I believe they should demonstrate reasonable suspicion or provide evidence of high rates of true positive detection. Then there is the issue that the abhorrent TSA is still behind all and incompetence is to be expected.

On October 16 2009 09:10 TanGeng wrote:
A standard pat down is still an invasion of privacy. Why do people consider pat downs and feel-ups are now par for the course?

On October 16 2009 09:21 mOnion wrote:


a pat down is not invasion of privacy. you are allowed that right based on your status.

you should probably study law for, literally, more than 1 second before you start trolling.

and I'm 90% sure this will be perfectly acceptable, given the status and importance of airport security.

On October 16 2009 09:23 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


You should probably read my other post where I talk about his repetitive trolling of TSA.. yeah. That'd be great. Reading the thread you post in is a good policy my friend.

On October 16 2009 09:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


In prudish america/canada as well as asian cultures and the middle east IT IS a big deal. I figured you were smart enough to consider the more conservative cultures and not just figure everyone was like minded of a german or swede.

On October 16 2009 09:25 RoyW wrote:




I'm sorry if you believe that I am being excessively confrontational about it and really don't want to hijack the thread. (If I get told to leave the thread I won't make any other post) I thought I had previously outlined that I didn't intend to be an asshole about my points. I'm sorry if it has come out that way, but you have been obnoxious here.

Anyway, I do understand that there are naturally different cultural standards, and I started off in this thread explaining that I felt it was a pity that people were culturally conditioned to feel this way, which is entirely relevant to the topic. If this is a device that would save time and money for airport security, I would feel it's a pity if something I think of as an irrational conditioned value would prevent its implementation. I think it would be great if it could be brought in as a more time and cost efficient solution, but as I said, I would fully support the frisking option for all the hypothetical mothers who like men touching them as opposed to looking at their breasts.

Anyway, I asked this earlier. In your opposition to this, if a guy had a genuine cultural-value aversion to being touched or being viewed through this, would you then say 'tough luck, you can't fly'? Where do you draw the line?

On October 16 2009 09:32 TanGeng wrote:
A pat down is a search of a person. It's not widely considered an invasion of privacy because people have gotten so used to it. They just have a policy where passengers are not allowed into the boarding area unless they consent to the searches requested by TSA official. When the TSA official does a pat down, they have either reasonable suspicion or it's "random choice" policy.

The idea behind the nude scans is pretty much everyone walks through it. Everyone gets scanned. It's equivalent to doing the pat down to every single passenger that walks through a checkpoint every single time. Is that the standard that people feel should apply to pat down searches - the baseline standard?

On October 16 2009 09:36 mOnion wrote:
no, its not considered civil battery (which is what it would be called if some random guy on the streets touched your junk) because of the position the security guards are in. same thing for police men.

saying they're "used to it" would render all other inappropriate cases of sexual battery null.

On October 16 2009 09:31 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Uh there are cultural aversions to being touched. like in the middle east.

You guys know not everyone is padded down right? It selective and infrequent. The metal detectors / odor detectors and various other stations all make up the constant protection. With pad downs, interviews and in the most extreme circumstances full inspection being the "random" element of protection.

On October 16 2009 09:59 TanGeng wrote:
As for the origin of the technology, I think it derived from application in the US prison system where these devices were used to detect non-metallic shivs taped to people's bodies or hidden in the anal cavities. Maybe it will detect drugs, too. The resolution gives a picture that is quite a bit more invasive of privacy than than a simple pat down.

I think the proper question is what level of invasion of privacy will passengers tolerate from their government ordained security bureaucrats for little or no gain in security, with great hassle, and at a high cost to the tax base.

On October 16 2009 10:03 TanGeng wrote:
Due process 4th amendment.