EPTNude body scans at airports - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
thezergk
United States492 Posts
| ||
|
SubPointOA
United States183 Posts
| ||
|
VabuDeltaKaiser
Germany1107 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
VabuDeltaKaiser
Germany1107 Posts
On November 20 2010 09:33 CharlieMurphy wrote: if this actually happens, who wants to bet how long before some perv who works at the airport starts putting body scans on the internet. not a second | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 20 2010 08:28 Kakera wrote: Or they won cause you're giving a shit. Two sides to the same coin. How is this any different to you than a normal scan by metal detectors? So it shows you nude to stranger... Don't be a prude. You'll never meet this person again and he/she probably doesn't want to see your naked ass in the first place. You're worried about privacy? Drive a car... that way you can smuggle your drugs and alcohol in privacy. Plus what "privacy" are they taking away from you if they were in the small chance they ever actually do this to you specifically? I'm not in favor of it cause people should chill the fuck out, but with the same argument I'm not foaming at the mouth for this to stop. Please care to expand upon my arguments for why I should give a shit about this to the extent of your E-rage. So, do you take the time to read even a little bit of the thread at hand at all before cherry picking one post that you can address by framing up nonsensical straw castle paragraphs that address exactly zero of the issues under discussion? First of all, your post makes no sense. "Or they won cause you're giving a shit"? Wait, Al-Qaeda wins because American citizens are caring about their freedom? How does that even begin to make sense? How on Earth is that a victory for terrorism? If the goal of terrorism according to you is to get people to take their civil liberties more seriously and lead to more responsibility in government, then I must say I'm all in favor of terrorism. And why should you give a shit? Well, this will take a while, because there are pretty much reasons in every single category you can think of to be against this: Practical: + Show Spoiler + Do they work? No they don't. So what's the point of it then? What is the point of a deliberate minor inconvenience if it serves no purpose at all? It just wastes your time, and time is money. What if your job requires large amounts of air travel? Think of all the time wasted. Plus, if they can get away with a security measure that does absolutely nothing, what else can they get away with? Are you okay if they start randomly strip searching people? Economical: + Show Spoiler + Do they work? No they don't. Even if they did, are they worth the cost? These babies cost $250k a pop, remember. Think of all the money sunk into all of these machines everywhere in the world, now think of how many life-saving medical treatments could be financed with that kind of money. Or food to starving people, or foreign aid to crisis zones, or money sunk into education, or civil infrastructure, or whatever. And remember, private airlines don't have a choice in the matter - they have to surrender to the TSA, which now holds a monopoly on air traffic security in the US. If you previously worked or want to work at an airport as a private security official, you should definitely be giving a shit. Medical: + Show Spoiler + Can these things hurt you? Yes they can. If you are a woman with a congenital susceptibility to breast cancer, or you're really old, or you're a cancer patient whose cancer is in remission, or you're a person who has been immunocompromised, or you're a pregnant woman, or you're a child, you should definitely be giving a shit. Or maybe you're just some random internet tough guy who strikes out at the cosmic lottery and ends up being that 1 guy in 30 million who gets a bad case of prostate cancer from going through one of these things just once. I bet you'd really be giving a shit then. And this is all assuming these machines work, every single scan, exactly as they're advertised to. What about software errors? Hardware failures? Operator incompetence? It has happened before! Ethical: + Show Spoiler + Let's say you're an internet badass who uses 4chan tactics like throwing around words like "e-rage". You have nothing to fear, but what about your grandma? What about your wife and little daughter? Are you okay with random strangers seeing them naked? Even if they're convicted sex offenders, which TSA has been known to hire? What about if they save the nudes too and it becomes part of some random guy's fap folder? You don't give a shit about any of that? Or what about just the very basic idea that a huge portion of the population, all innocent citizens, have to give up their fundamental privacy for no reason (remember, these things don't work!)? Legal: + Show Spoiler + Let's say you live in the United States. You have probably heard then of this little law, it's not really important, it's just something some dudes threw together on a whim, I believe it's called the 4th Amendment? You know, the part of the Bill of Rights that prevents shit like this from happening? Would you be okay with a random strip search whenever you try to take the bus? Or the random strip search of your loved ones? And I don't mean "take off your coat and belt", I mean all the way to probing your nether regions. No, you wouldn't be okay with that? Then why aren't you giving a shit about this, which is basically an electronic version? Or how about those pesky child pornography laws? Or if you have breast implants or a prosthetic leg or something, these things violate medical privacy laws too! On November 20 2010 09:09 Dayvan wrote: "Please tell me why touching a four-year-old girl is not wrong." I think a substantial number of us would agree that touching a four-year-old girl is morally invalid. The point is, if you wanted to fly from a private terminal where the agreement is that your four-year-old daughter must be "touched" (consider this to be legal in the society's system of government for this hypothetical situation) before you can go on your flight, you would never agree ergo you would never fly with that airline. The point the man was making is that you don't have to use private, state, or federal airlines. You can use a different method of transportation or start your own airline. If none of these are available, then you can't fly. If enough people can't fly, the airline will change their policy or go out of business. If the airline goes out of business, a new one will arise that has different policies. What allows society to function is the mutual agreement between people...no human right is absolute except those necessary for mutual agreement. You are demonstrably wrong, in the USA at least. These things are not the implements of private airline companies. Airline companies have no choice in the matter. This is the product and procedure of the TSA, backed by the Department of Homeland Security. In your hypothetical situation, if you don't want your four-year-old daughter to be touched, then you better take a train because all airlines are subject to these proceedings. It doesn't matter if enough people don't fly or if the airlines go out of business or if you start your own airline, you're still going to be operating by the TSA playbook. And this is just for now, because the TSA's authority extends beyond just airlines, they have dominion over all forms of transportation in the entire United States. And this is the TSA we're talking about, perhaps the only government agency more corrupt and inefficient than the FDA. This agency hires criminals and convicted sex offenders as airport security officials, they have lax training and operational protocol, and they are widely known for being incompetent, and you're paying them. Your tax money is going into these useless machines. For all your fancy talk of mutual agreement and government responsibility, you can't even be bothered to do the barest minimum of research on the topic at hand before addressing it. You are completely and demonstrably wrong on every single premise of your entire argument beginning with the baseless assertion that one out of every hundred people go through these things. Next time, try doing some basic research or even just going on wikipedia or something before responding. | ||
|
Crt
247 Posts
On November 20 2010 09:33 CharlieMurphy wrote: if this actually happens, who wants to bet how long before some perv who works at the airport starts putting body scans on the internet. if this happens, i'm changing job. | ||
|
ccHaZaRd
Canada1024 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
Oh God! potential danger! Now we need to spend hundreds of millions giving body scans to the entire aircraft and hire aeronautical and structural engineers to monitor the the images. They should also do a thorough patdown of the plane before it takes off if they can't devise a way to create a massive scanner. Actually, that sounds like a much better use of resources now that I think about it. | ||
|
samalie
Canada87 Posts
On November 20 2010 08:28 Kakera wrote: Or they won cause you're giving a shit. Two sides to the same coin. How is this any different to you than a normal scan by metal detectors? So it shows you nude to stranger... Don't be a prude. You'll never meet this person again and he/she probably doesn't want to see your naked ass in the first place. You're worried about privacy? Drive a car... that way you can smuggle your drugs and alcohol in privacy. Plus what "privacy" are they taking away from you if they were in the small chance they ever actually do this to you specifically? I'm not in favor of it cause people should chill the fuck out, but with the same argument I'm not foaming at the mouth for this to stop. Please care to expand upon my arguments for why I should give a shit about this to the extent of your E-rage. You should care because this is fundamentially wrong. And, overall, both the scanner and the Freedom Fondle methods are just the "Roulette Method of Safety" - if the terrorist happens to be there when the wheel hits 00 and they pick him (over the hot chick with big tits), then fine, we catch him. Otherwise, we don't accomplish fuck all. How about this argument...Do you want some fuck with a high school diploma checking out your daughter...your wife...naked? How about some power-tripping asshole rubbing your son's cock? I've got fuck all to hide. I don't smuggle fuck all, nor do I wish anyone in any country any harm. But this is seriously fucked up. I'm all for security. I have never had a single issue with all the explosive detectors, metal detectors, normal pat downs, etc that I have been subjected to in the many flights I have taken in my life. But this shit just goes too far. And yes, I have serious rage over this. The first TSA Agent that plays with my daughter's va-jay-jay in the name of some false sense of security is going to find my boot knocking out his teeth. Realistically though, I vote with my wallet. I, like many others, will not travel by air through any US airport so long as these asshats are violationg our rights. I have no need to spend my tourism dollars in the USA, and I simply will not take the chance that I or my family will be put through this shit. Simple. And no....the terrorists won because we're willing to accept the erosion of our rights. Personally, I'd rather face the chance of death over giving one pube-hair worth of rights away. But that's me. I take personal rights & freedoms really fucking seriously. | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
| ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
From wasting our time with a long useless line to purposefully stalling to underscore their arbitrary authority, from engaging in a theatrical farce of security to actively creating a security vulnerability in long lines of passengers, from rifling through your stuff to outright stealing it, I've really changed some of my flying behavior. Every single time they do more of this, the threshold requirements for flying increases. Now I can probably drive 400 miles to my destination before considering flying and some trips get canceled in favor of alternative methods. The gratuitous dose of radiation is something I will pass on and being groped is something I'll avoid, too. The airlines have lost me as a customer numerous time and it wasn't anything they did themselves. They're shooting themselves in the foot every single year they don't get rid of the TSA goons. Janet Napolitano can take a hike too. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 20 2010 08:28 Kakera wrote: Or they won cause you're giving a shit. Two sides to the same coin. How is this any different to you than a normal scan by metal detectors? So it shows you nude to stranger... Don't be a prude. You'll never meet this person again and he/she probably doesn't want to see your naked ass in the first place. You're worried about privacy? Drive a car... that way you can smuggle your drugs and alcohol in privacy. Plus what "privacy" are they taking away from you if they were in the small chance they ever actually do this to you specifically? I'm not in favor of it cause people should chill the fuck out, but with the same argument I'm not foaming at the mouth for this to stop. Please care to expand upon my arguments for why I should give a shit about this to the extent of your E-rage. I think you need to stop posting. Being deathly afraid of terrorists is completely different than being angry at the government requiring electronic strip searches. If by other side of the coin you mean completely opposite and nothing resembling one another, you are right! | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
| ||
|
Serendipicus
United States90 Posts
| ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 20 2010 10:59 Fa1nT wrote: Edit - Nvm, not worth it, this thread has gone to shit. This thread has gone to shit because people disagree with you? Cool forum etiquette bro. Although, it's probably a good thing you edited your post, since your original straw man contributed nothing either. On November 20 2010 11:13 SharkSpider wrote: I can't help but wonder if people will be completely okay with this if they used a computer program to analyze the scans instead of a human. Seems way more futuristic than guess-and-check with security guards. People should not be okay with this. Period. Doesn't matter if it's a computer or a person doing the processing. There are too many reasons to be against these, even if they worked, which they don't. Try reading the thread before you post. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On November 20 2010 11:30 Krigwin wrote: People should not be okay with this. Period. Doesn't matter if it's a computer or a person doing the processing. There are too many reasons to be against these, even if they worked, which they don't. Try reading the thread before you post. So you seriously think that if they worked and peole weren't looking at the pictures, there would still be a problem with them? I've read the thread, and I haven't come across any of these miraculous reasons that you claim to have. | ||
|
Dayvan
United States77 Posts
On November 20 2010 09:56 Krigwin wrote: So, do you take the time to read even a little bit of the thread at hand at all before cherry picking one post that you can address by framing up nonsensical straw castle paragraphs that address exactly zero of the issues under discussion? First of all, your post makes no sense. "Or they won cause you're giving a shit"? Wait, Al-Qaeda wins because American citizens are caring about their freedom? How does that even begin to make sense? How on Earth is that a victory for terrorism? If the goal of terrorism according to you is to get people to take their civil liberties more seriously and lead to more responsibility in government, then I must say I'm all in favor of terrorism. And why should you give a shit? Well, this will take a while, because there are pretty much reasons in every single category you can think of to be against this: Practical: + Show Spoiler + Do they work? No they don't. So what's the point of it then? What is the point of a deliberate minor inconvenience if it serves no purpose at all? It just wastes your time, and time is money. What if your job requires large amounts of air travel? Think of all the time wasted. Plus, if they can get away with a security measure that does absolutely nothing, what else can they get away with? Are you okay if they start randomly strip searching people? Economical: + Show Spoiler + Do they work? No they don't. Even if they did, are they worth the cost? These babies cost $250k a pop, remember. Think of all the money sunk into all of these machines everywhere in the world, now think of how many life-saving medical treatments could be financed with that kind of money. Or food to starving people, or foreign aid to crisis zones, or money sunk into education, or civil infrastructure, or whatever. And remember, private airlines don't have a choice in the matter - they have to surrender to the TSA, which now holds a monopoly on air traffic security in the US. If you previously worked or want to work at an airport as a private security official, you should definitely be giving a shit. Medical: + Show Spoiler + Can these things hurt you? Yes they can. If you are a woman with a congenital susceptibility to breast cancer, or you're really old, or you're a cancer patient whose cancer is in remission, or you're a person who has been immunocompromised, or you're a pregnant woman, or you're a child, you should definitely be giving a shit. Or maybe you're just some random internet tough guy who strikes out at the cosmic lottery and ends up being that 1 guy in 30 million who gets a bad case of prostate cancer from going through one of these things just once. I bet you'd really be giving a shit then. And this is all assuming these machines work, every single scan, exactly as they're advertised to. What about software errors? Hardware failures? Operator incompetence? It has happened before! Ethical: + Show Spoiler + Let's say you're an internet badass who uses 4chan tactics like throwing around words like "e-rage". You have nothing to fear, but what about your grandma? What about your wife and little daughter? Are you okay with random strangers seeing them naked? Even if they're convicted sex offenders, which TSA has been known to hire? What about if they save the nudes too and it becomes part of some random guy's fap folder? You don't give a shit about any of that? Or what about just the very basic idea that a huge portion of the population, all innocent citizens, have to give up their fundamental privacy for no reason (remember, these things don't work!)? Legal: + Show Spoiler + Let's say you live in the United States. You have probably heard then of this little law, it's not really important, it's just something some dudes threw together on a whim, I believe it's called the 4th Amendment? You know, the part of the Bill of Rights that prevents shit like this from happening? Would you be okay with a random strip search whenever you try to take the bus? Or the random strip search of your loved ones? And I don't mean "take off your coat and belt", I mean all the way to probing your nether regions. No, you wouldn't be okay with that? Then why aren't you giving a shit about this, which is basically an electronic version? Or how about those pesky child pornography laws? Or if you have breast implants or a prosthetic leg or something, these things violate medical privacy laws too! You are demonstrably wrong, in the USA at least. These things are not the implements of private airline companies. Airline companies have no choice in the matter. This is the product and procedure of the TSA, backed by the Department of Homeland Security. In your hypothetical situation, if you don't want your four-year-old daughter to be touched, then you better take a train because all airlines are subject to these proceedings. It doesn't matter if enough people don't fly or if the airlines go out of business or if you start your own airline, you're still going to be operating by the TSA playbook. And this is just for now, because the TSA's authority extends beyond just airlines, they have dominion over all forms of transportation in the entire United States. And this is the TSA we're talking about, perhaps the only government agency more corrupt and inefficient than the FDA. This agency hires criminals and convicted sex offenders as airport security officials, they have lax training and operational protocol, and they are widely known for being incompetent, and you're paying them. Your tax money is going into these useless machines. For all your fancy talk of mutual agreement and government responsibility, you can't even be bothered to do the barest minimum of research on the topic at hand before addressing it. You are completely and demonstrably wrong on every single premise of your entire argument beginning with the baseless assertion that one out of every hundred people go through these things. Next time, try doing some basic research or even just going on wikipedia or something before responding. Okay Kriglose, you have a point. I didn't do any research here - but neither did you apparently. This is evident in two ways: A., you took my argument at face value and dodged its meaning (aside: I see you make a habit of this by loading up on the face value of the news only to vomit all of your hard observed facts over an internet page) and B., all you had to do to see what I was talking about was to scroll up two or three posts to understand that I was clarifying someone elses argument. My actual point had nothing to do with who regulates the rule, or what the rule is about. Perhaps if you weren't out to be such an asshole you would have noticed that. Perhaps you should refer to your first quote attack on how to avoid cherry-picking people to flip shit over. I don't mind being corrected but if you were trying to "show me who's boss" I think you missed your mark on this one Secondly, in reference to the actual grounds of my earlier point, I was only expressing the fact that if you don't approve of how a system runs, you don't have to use it. Hopefully that was easier for you to grasp this time. Thirdly, I would "try doing some basic research" if this was something I was actually concerned about. But why stop there? There's thousands of injustices and millions of dollars going to waste in more directions than just this one. I could easily spend the rest of my life researching topics such as this. The whole reason I stopped to read this thread was to learn a little about it - I obviously don't care as much about the topic as you do (in fact, judging by the public's reaction to it, it seems rather trivial as it'll quickly be dismissed from airports... if you really think the TSA's payroll has NOTHING to do with how the airlines are faring, well, lets just say I'd like to see your argument on that one). I didn't come on here, as you have, with the intention to ruin my reputation by trying to sound informed and instead coming off as a complete asshole. By the way, as an aside, I would rather my tax money go to something that was intended to benefit me (more in-depth approach at airport security) as opposed to being thrown at the hungry or saving random peoples' lives in hospitals I've never even heard about. Maybe the x-ray idea is going in the wrong direction but I can tell you I'd sooner support that idea than most of the shit you suggested. That more or less ruined your whole argument for me. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 20 2010 12:55 Dayvan wrote: if you don't approve of how a system runs, you don't have to use it. It is unfortunate you think this way. I've never understood how people go through life thinking, "Whatever the overlords throw at me, I'll just deal with it and ridicule people who desire freedom". You must live in a completely different world than the one I live in. | ||
|
Dayvan
United States77 Posts
On November 20 2010 13:07 Romantic wrote: It is unfortunate you think this way. I've never understood how people go through life thinking, "Whatever the overlords throw at me, I'll just deal with it and ridicule people who desire freedom". You must live in a completely different world than the one I live in. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but I only have two things to say about this. You must live in a very socialist world because where I'm from, if people don't pay for your product then it doesn't get sold. In a capitalist society, the niche always gets filled by someone/something else that's worth your two cents. Freedom doesn't come from bitching, it comes from action. In this country action is manifested by dollar bills. How the hell am I ridiculing freedom? This whole time I've been professing my desire for the freedom to live. If I wanted to come up with some stupid naive argument blaming one source over some other source to make it sound like I cared, I would just blame the radical fundamentalist groups who caused a necessity for all of this security to begin with. Unfortunately not everyone in this country responds to reason and that's why I insist people protest on the surest way to get attention: not by denying them your confidence but by denying them your checkbook. | ||
| ||
