EPTOn October 25 2008 03:42 DooMeR wrote:
Meh i dont really give a shit. I think people are too insecure.
Meh i dont really give a shit. I think people are too insecure.
Then you missed the point. =(
Nude body scans at airports - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Schnake
Germany2819 Posts
Then you missed the point. =( | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
I hope TSA enjoys giving me pat downs. I also hope that they rage and try to humiliate you for refusing the x-ray, it'll make my day when I laugh at them and tell them not to get too excited when they feel me up. No sane person really believes this is necessary given the risks; if they did, they'd be crazy. Reactionary emotional sensationalism is part of American culture, so I'm not surprised people mistaken believe that they support such a thing. EPIC filed a lawsuit and has news: http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html Remember children, the Native America- I mean, communists, oh, shit, I mean, terrorists are out to destroy our way of life!  | ||
|
SolHeiM
Sweden1264 Posts
But other people are so insecure and sensitive that it doesn't surprise me that things like this get squashed immediately regardless of how much it would improve airport security. | ||
|
Tufas
Austria2259 Posts
And if they save those pictures, for the love of god, add some fake hair. If I am being scanned I need my mane to be visible for everyone. And dont forget : If they ask you why the regular scanners hit on you, just tell them that you love the scanner too but cant be with them right now. I always do that. Freaks the airport security out. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother | ||
|
dapierow
Serbia1316 Posts
face it its pretty much you cant get on the plane unless we know forsure 100% no matter what you are not carrying an explosive... guilty until proven innocent... | ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:19 nalgene wrote: Israel only takes 30-40 minutes that the Amerikans/Canadians take several hours doing the same check and the citizens still feel safer and less paranoid. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother the thing is israelis are more likely to give up security for privacy since you know, theyre in the middle east. | ||
|
Danze
Australia219 Posts
On October 24 2008 02:19 H wrote: I'm white edit: that was a jab at the fact you are asian and therefore have a small penis, just in case you didn't get the implications there It doesn't really work when you have to explain your joke, sorry bro. You lose this round :D Anyway, I'm not really sure what to make of this. Personally I wouldn't mind being scanned like that, but I know a lot of my girl friends who would probably object to that sort of thing. Anybody who can be overly self conscious I would presume to have an issue with this. | ||
|
deesee
Australia54 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:27 dapierow wrote: Amazing how people are willing to give up their privacy just for security... comes down to it being simply a moral/ethical thing for me... face it its pretty much you cant get on the plane unless we know forsure 100% no matter what you are not carrying an explosive... guilty until proven innocent... I don't know if you can really call it giving up privacy. And it always struck me as odd that people are more concerned about having somebody - who they'll probably never meet again - seeing their body in a completely non-sexual way, than they are concerned that their plane could be blown out of the air. Are we really going to reduce the notion of "privacy" to "I don't want them to see my wiener?" Another way to think about it would be to suggest that travel is a choice me all make, either directly or by extension from choice of career, etc. Airlines are a business, at the end of the day - if they have to implement something like this, whether by law or by conscious decision to safeguard their own assets and image, then they will do it. And if you still decide to fly, well, it should really up to them to decide how secure they want to be. Nobody is forcing you to take the plane. (Even though alternatives are generally terrible in comparison, especially internationally) I'd let them scan me, and I'm hugely conscious about the way I look. I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:38 Danze wrote: Anybody who can be overly self conscious I would presume to have an issue with this. Or uh... you know, reasonable people who believe in freedom and their limits have finally been reached.  | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote: I don't know if you can really call it giving up privacy. And it always struck me as odd that people are more concerned about having somebody - who they'll probably never meet again - seeing their body in a completely non-sexual way, than they are concerned that their plane could be blown out of the air. Are we really going to reduce the notion of "privacy" to "I don't want them to see my wiener?" Another way to think about it would be to suggest that travel is a choice me all make, either directly or by extension from choice of career, etc. Airlines are a business, at the end of the day - if they have to implement something like this, whether by law or by conscious decision to safeguard their own assets and image, then they will do it. And if you still decide to fly, well, it should really up to them to decide how secure they want to be. Nobody is forcing you to take the plane. (Even though alternatives are generally terrible in comparison, especially internationally) I'd let them scan me, and I'm hugely conscious about the way I look. I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day. I'll make a statement and ask a question. Flying is one of the safest methods of traveling yet devised. Do you think there should be naked scanners before you get in your car in the morning or before you go to class? | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:46 Romantic wrote: I'll make a statement and ask a question. Flying is one of the safest methods of traveling yet devised. Do you think there should be naked scanners before you get in your car in the morning or before you go to class? i want naked scans before i eat bacon and eggs for breakfast because you know millions of people die of heart attack. | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:52 Sfydjklm wrote: i want naked scans before i eat bacon and eggs for breakfast because you know millions of people die of heart attack. Already on sale! http://www.as-e.com/zbv/ Unhand that doughnut, fatty! | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:27 dapierow wrote: Amazing how people are willing to give up their privacy just for security... comes down to it being simply a moral/ethical thing for me... face it its pretty much you cant get on the plane unless we know forsure 100% no matter what you are not carrying an explosive... guilty until proven innocent... All this moral pseudo-problems are just devised to keep your ADHD impaired attention on something irrelevant in the real world. You know what i care about? That US congressman guy, Charlie Rangle, being found as corrupt as it goes and receiving a letter of reprimand for that. Subprime mortgages. Credit default swaps. Filibusters. Wars. Hunger, famine. But no sir, of course lets talk about your wiener issues. Because whether someone will or will not see the outlines of your penis is what's important for the future of humanity. | ||
|
deesee
Australia54 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:46 Romantic wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote: I don't know if you can really call it giving up privacy. And it always struck me as odd that people are more concerned about having somebody - who they'll probably never meet again - seeing their body in a completely non-sexual way, than they are concerned that their plane could be blown out of the air. Are we really going to reduce the notion of "privacy" to "I don't want them to see my wiener?" Another way to think about it would be to suggest that travel is a choice me all make, either directly or by extension from choice of career, etc. Airlines are a business, at the end of the day - if they have to implement something like this, whether by law or by conscious decision to safeguard their own assets and image, then they will do it. And if you still decide to fly, well, it should really up to them to decide how secure they want to be. Nobody is forcing you to take the plane. (Even though alternatives are generally terrible in comparison, especially internationally) I'd let them scan me, and I'm hugely conscious about the way I look. I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day. I'll make a statement and ask a question. Flying is one of the safest methods of traveling yet devised. Do you think there should be naked scanners before you get in your car in the morning or before you go to class? They're hardly the same thing. If my car happened to be regularly used for transporting strangers, and also happened to be an exploitable target for organizations that generally want to do harm to innocent bystanders, then yes. I'd actually want it implemented. There's no doubt flying is ridiculously safe and efficient. But it's also quite an efficient target that can do far more damage than my car, even if "the terrorists" jacked it. If my car had the potential to shower large areas of land in shrapnel, then I'd want more security. And hell yeah for naked scanners in class, all my classmates were babes. Edit: derp quotes | ||
|
Jetaap
France4814 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:55 sikyon wrote: If I recall these scanners were not being introduced for everybody - they were being introduced as an alternative to strip searching people. In such situations I think they are less invasive. I had to go in one of these scanners and they don't use it as an alternative to strip searching , they pick "random" peoples and scan you ... these scanners are so expensive that they try to use it as much as they can :p. I don't really care about it though (they don't really see you naked , it's more like the first picture of the OP I think),but I feel it's a big waste of money ... Edit: by the way , these scanners don't use x-rays but millemetric waves , I makes a HUGE difference because x-rays can induce cancers (that's why they should be used only when there is a good medical reason for it)whereas millimetric waves cannot (they cannot penetrate the skin). | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:46 Romantic wrote: There are problems with your comparison:I'll make a statement and ask a question. Flying is one of the safest methods of traveling yet devised. Do you think there should be naked scanners before you get in your car in the morning or before you go to class? Planes carry several dozen to several hundred people. It's not just a decision about your own safety that is being made. Cars on the other hand mostly only carry you and your family, which makes it a private issue and also reduces the number of lives being affected. You also have buses, but these tend to move slower than other cars and speed is an enormously important factor. Flying is only safe as long as your airplane is working okay. Introduce a certain malfunction and a lot of people will face instant death way easier than with a car, because the higher speed of planes make the forces which are at work a lot higher. A car on the other hand moves slowly enough for accidents to leave passengers badly injured or even unharmed, as opposed to immediately dead. Your comparison doesn't hold. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On November 18 2010 22:02 deesee wrote: They're hardly the same thing. If my car happened to be regularly used for transporting strangers, and also happened to be an exploitable target for organizations that generally want to do harm to innocent bystanders, then yes. I'd actually want it implemented. There's no doubt flying is ridiculously safe and efficient. But it's also quite an efficient target that can do far more damage than my car, even if "the terrorists" jacked it. If my car had the potential to shower large areas of land in shrapnel, then I'd want more security. And hell yeah for naked scanners in class, all my classmates were babes. Edit: derp quotes Drunk driving doesn't harm strangers? Terrorists dont put bombs in cars? Even if you live in a bubble, how about buses? Edit: You both seem to mistakenly believe size is relevant and frequency isn't. Just because a hundred fatal car crashes don't get discussed on the news for 3 months doesn't mean the scale of destruction is less than one airliner. | ||
|
Eggm
United States152 Posts
| ||
| ||
