On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue.
Same can be done at any public gathering. Get ready have body scanners every-fucking-where. Hell, don't even go outside, it's too risky.
Last I checked, airplanes aren't public gatherings, the insides of airports aren't public places, and explosives are way more effective in confined spaces sitting on top giant wings full of jet fuel. Don't make comparisons without trying to justify them, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot when you make ones that don't make any sense.
Uh, it makes perfect sense. They are effective in confined spaces, like you said. This would apply to concerts, grocery stores, movies, etc. just as easy as airplanes.
Public gathering = lots of people in a small area.
Spend more than two seconds thinking about what someone said before you reply, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot.
I'm gonna post, in spoiler, a convo on AIM about the subject between me and a friend. I will omit my part of it because I'm a retard and brought nothing but shitty jokes to the convo :p
Friend 3:40 am Oh god People are seriouslygetting pissed about the TSA please continue, America. Me 3:41 am TSA? Please explain. I'm canuck Friend 3:42 am TSA are using full-body scanners if you dont go for the nudey scan you get felt up by a high school dropout Me 3:42 am Oh Friend 3:42 am You can't opt out, if you do you're liable to be fined 11k Friend 3:43 am I hate the TSA, so it's about fucking time. Friend 3:43 am Its not anything new Just now everyone has to either do the nudey-scan or the pat-down Thus, americans mad. Friend 3:46 am >mfw I've put up with this sort of shit going from the US to the UK and coming back in for some time now, and now people are bitching Friend 3:47 am if you say no to the scanner you get the pat-down Friend 3:47 am which is more like a feel-up than a pat down. Friend 3:51 am >mfw Canadians have no sense of offence to having their rights eroded Me 3:52 am It's simply an attitude of "Seriously, why the fuck in heaven and hell would I care about it. Whoopty doo, they see me naked." Tbh, the screener would probably be more accepted than mandatory pat down Friend 3:53 am Its a precedent m8. It does nothing to further security, and gives the Government more reason to do insane shit in the name of stopping ragheads from touching planes. tbh I can't wait for the new check after a terrorist puts a bomb in his butt. Friend 3:54 am >implying that closing the security hole after it's exploited does jackshit Me 3:55 am fuck, he could clench dem cheeks tight so that he can have a little rope out, just like a tampon, so pulling the bag out is easier than "whoops, it went in the shitter." Friend 3:56 am Al Qaeda isn't stupid. They're not going to do the same shit twice after you get wise to it. Its like putting water through a soup strainer. You're not stopping much, you're just obsfucating it/making it appear things are more secure. Me 3:57 am That's true. Friend 3:58 am You cant put a net out and expect to catch fish if the fish are able to find a way through the holes. You're just going to strangle dolphins. Friend 4:02 am Counterterrorism cannot succeed at the airport. Should there be security? Yes, obviously. But you cannot expect to ever stop sophisitcated groups such as Al Qaeda with a bunch of high school dropouts with multibillion dollar screeners and a license to grab at your jimmies. tl;dr: it's the DHS justifying it's existence/expenditure on all of those fucking scanners. Me 4:03 am Someone must be making lodsehmoneh on this. Friend 4:03 am PRETTY MUCH tl;dr: Fuck it, America. Even Australia is less Authoritarian than you. Friend 4:06 am You're also now aware that the TSA's power inadvertently lets the DHS control most travel for the majority of Americans, due to a lack of a sophisitcated train system. Friend 4:08 am There is no viable mode of fast transport in the US aside from Air Travel. You can fly for three hours, or you can drive for a week, or take a mess and clusterfuck of AMTRAK trains for a few days. Friend 4:10 am Thus, the TSA being more invasive on airplane checks means that the lion's share of in-country and international travel can be very closely monitored/controlled. Me 4:11 am lion? Friend 4:11 am Lion's Share = a large, generally unequal share. Me 4:11 am Oh Friend 4:11 am In short, it makes (inter)national transport of people and most freight easy to control and monitor without oversight or question. Friend 4:13 am tl;dr: Don't go to America. Friend 4:17 am Also, if you wanted to find bombs bombsniffer dogs > TSA fucks Dogs are cheaper and more cuddly too. Friend 4:18 am >mfw full-body scanners wouldn't have stopped the Underwear Bomber they were introduced in response too. Friend 4:21 am tip: Pilot's door are now reinforced Friend 4:21 am And locked for the entire flight. Not even the flight attendants can open. Friend 4:22 am tl;dr Random Air Marshalls, the reinforced doors, bombsniffer dogs and metal detectors. I've now solved airplanes.
All the people talking about if it increases by 1%! The security is worth it.
I'm of the mind that if they really want to blow up a plane they will. I don't appreciate the total invasion of privacy. Regardless that they don't see me its just another security measure in an already ridiculous system where I have to be at the airport three hours in advance just to make my flight.
The whole liquid explosive thing would be too bookstore to transport on a plane worth enough of it to blow a plane up but whatever.
Looks like my flight to germany will be even more irritating.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue.
Same can be done at any public gathering. Get ready have body scanners every-fucking-where. Hell, don't even go outside, it's too risky.
Last I checked, airplanes aren't public gatherings, the insides of airports aren't public places, and explosives are way more effective in confined spaces sitting on top giant wings full of jet fuel. Don't make comparisons without trying to justify them, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot when you make ones that don't make any sense.
Uh, it makes perfect sense. They are effective in confined spaces, like you said. This would apply to concerts, grocery stores, movies, etc. just as easy as airplanes.
Public gathering = lots of people in a small area.
Spend more than two seconds thinking about what someone said before you reply, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot.
I could tell you to do the same. You're blatantly denying the fact that airplanes are way more dangerous than any of the situations you've described. Another fact is that there's never been a tragedy of the same magnitude in a movie theatre or an indoor concert. While that doesn't mean that there never will be, you need to consider that several factors affect the size of an explosion, namely the size of the bomb, the size of the area, whether or not the area is pressure sealed and whether or not there's anything else there to catch fire. In all categories, airplanes are the absolute worst, especially when there's a danger of having one drop out of the air in to a city. Even in the size category, it's not exactly the easiest thing in the world to take a bag in to a theatre, and you need way more to blow up an open area with ventilation and fire exits. Furthermore, the danger isn't just to the people on board or close to the event. It's the fact that it's an airplane, which is much better at instilling "terror" which is what suicide bombers are looking to do anyways.
Again, spend more than a few seconds thinking of the fact that someone offended you on the internet and think about the things you're saying. When every single factor that didn't appear in your own arguments says the opposite of what you're saying, it's pretty easy to see that you haven't really considered your position.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue.
Applying your logic, I recommend that NO ONE is allowed to bring ANYTHING on board. Problem solved. Heat the plane to 22°C, make everyone strip naked, seatch all body openings and if they are clean, on board they go. Clothes and Luggage will be sent separately, just for security. Problem solved. /sarcsam
On a serious note, what is the "real threat" you are referring to? Terrorism? The threat may be real but the perceived risk is FAR higher than the actual threat would rationally justify. I mean, as some people correctly pointed out, people seem to endure a lot of crap and tolerate massive (tax-payed) security inestments to reduce a ridiculously small chance of being killed by an even smaller margin. At the same time, these people eat unhealthy food, probabaly drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, maybe don't take the "don't drink and drive" too serious etc.
Its stupid to a degree that is not longer comprehensible from a purely rational standpoint and this is what annoys me so about it.
It's not like the guards are having like a porn show infront of them. For every 'hot' person they see they probably have like 20 that they wished the could unsee. Peeping at grannies/grandpas is not something very appealing.
Oh ya, are children exempt from this kinda test? Cuz if not... then that's pretty damn distrubing.
Applying your logic, I recommend that NO ONE is allowed to bring ANYTHING on board. Problem solved. Heat the plane to 22°C, make everyone strip naked, seatch all body openings and if they are clean, on board they go. Clothes and Luggage will be sent separately, just for security. Problem solved. /sarcsam
On a serious note, what is the "real threat" you are referring to? Terrorism? The threat may be real but the perceived risk is FAR higher than the actual threat would rationally justify. I mean, as some people correctly pointed out, people seem to endure a lot of crap and tolerate massive (tax-payed) security inestments to reduce a ridiculously small chance of being killed by an even smaller margin. At the same time, these people eat unhealthy food, probabaly drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, maybe don't take the "don't drink and drive" too serious etc.
Its stupid to a degree that is not longer comprehensible from a purely rational standpoint and this is what annoys me so about it.
The point of these machines is to offset the discomfort of searches, which in turn are to offset the chance of any danger or hijackings. Security measures are not mainly to stop threats at the gate but to stop them before they become an option, as in they are not conceived because would be attackers are thinking of how to get past security. You saying that the risk of being killed on an airplane is a ridiculously small chance is invalidated by the fact that these machines and other security measures are the reason for that small chance. In summation, I am all for anything that gets me onto a plane and to my destination quicker, with less hassle of people asking me to remove clothing or be groped.
-> They don't work properly: Either they are so sensitive that almost everyone has to be searched manually anyways, or they are too insensitive to detect weapons. -> They might be a danger to health - not for most individuals, but statistically, especially for people flying a lot. Even if the health risk is low but existing, it would probably cause more damage than not using them at all! -> It's an akward insight into private intimacy
I wonder: Where are the times gone where people and nations had the mindset that it is a valid option to die for defending their freedom?
A text of Volker Pispers about the topic: "The question is - what are you afraid of? That's the deciding question in terms of terrorism to me. It's not about playing down crimes! Sure, these people are murderers - ordinary, bad murderers! But not more! Don't glorify them to "terrorists"! Terror it is, because we are afraid of it. The terror is here in our heads. They're murderers, like there are many murderers in this world. What are you afraid of, that's the deciding question! Of Al Quaida? 150,000 Germans die from smoking every year. 5000 Germans die from the consequences of boozing. 6000 Germans die in road traffic. What are you afraid of? 6000 Germans die from flu, every year, totally ordinary flu, not SARS or bird flu or something dangerous like that, totally ordinary flu. And 15.000 deaths we have from doctors' mistakes. German doctors bring down 15,000 patients every year. That's 44 deads a day. Quite a lot, don't you think? An old Al-Quaida fighter had to work quite some time for that, the Marburg Union (German medical doctors' union) does that during lunch break on good days!"
Just think of all the people dying in traffic every year in many countries. The "toll for mobility", that is. Instead, many countries changed the laws: Some years ago, it was a law in Germany that trucks always had to be driven by two drivers over large distances, to avoid crashes caused by tired truck drivers. This law was nullified, probably because it appeared like a great way of increasing economic growth to the gouvernment as it makes transportation cheaper... As a result, from time to time a totally overworked truck driver crashes into an end of a traffic jam killing some people. This is killing much more Germans than Al Quaida ever did, and probably it's the same for the USA (apart from the dead soldiers in Iraq which was pretty much the US governments guilt as they sent them into such a hostile environment where lots of fighters and terrorists are attacking them, people who would never come to the USA though but now think of defending their home countries).
The thing about suicide bombers is if you stop fucking people off constantly with your foreign policy, they will run out eventually.
If you dropped a 10th of the amount of dollars on Afghanistan or Iraq that you dropped in terms of the value of bombs, I guarantee you neither country would want to blow you up. Hell, they would be too busy buying your products.
And the rate the fed is printing money, you shouldn't run out of ammunition too quickly.
Now, consider this:
How many terrorists would it take to seize a major water processing plant (or less dramatically, just drill into a water main) in New York City? Pump in a few gallons of dioxin and bingo. 10,000 dead.
Going to put someone on guard every 50m of the public waterworks in the US? Didn't think so. Risk management is all about guarding against the greatest risk at a reasonable cost. The TSA is a response not just to terror, but at American pride at getting seriously butthurt by a load of guys with wraparound hats. It's not a rational response. Reinforced cockpit doors were a rational response.
Still, maybe the US government might stop funding terrorist organisations in everyone else's damn countries. Hah.
That is messed up. Super violation of Privacy. And really wrong.
Its like saying hey its ok for you to give some random guy a naked picture of me because i don't know him.
Personally for me i don't mind for myself because im comfortable with how i look , but their are many people and religions that will take offense to someone seeing their wives daughters or girlfriends naked. Let alone their Children.
How do we know their isn't some kind of sick sexual pervert behind the camera?
On November 19 2010 05:19 NSGrendel wrote: The thing about suicide bombers is if you stop fucking people off constantly with your foreign policy, they will run out eventually.
Still, maybe the US government might stop funding terrorist organisations in everyone else's damn countries. Hah.
On November 19 2010 04:24 viletomato wrote: It's not like the guards are having like a porn show infront of them. For every 'hot' person they see they probably have like 20 that they wished the could unsee. Peeping at grannies/grandpas is not something very appealing.
Oh ya, are children exempt from this kinda test? Cuz if not... then that's pretty damn distrubing.
So they will be mocking some people instead of getting turned on, so reassuring.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
This has EVERYTHING to do with rights and freedoms. What we're essentially seeing here is a virual strip search that is being mandated by the government. Having someone see me naked is not a minor inconvencience, it's a huge violation of my privacy. I don't choose to fly, I have to for work, and if I refuse, I'll lose my job, my house, and my livelihood. So I'm left with a choice of a virtual strip search or some stranger grabbing my balls through my clothes? How can you not see a problem with this? The government is using your fear of terrorists to chip away at your rights. If this practice is allowed to continue, it's only a matter of time before we're using these machines everywhere. Churches, grocery stores, stadiums, aparments are all going to require virtual strip searches to get into.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1220985,00.jpg)
, but their are many people and religions that will take offense to someone seeing their wives daughters or girlfriends naked. Let alone their Children.
