Nude body scans at airports - Page 7

On November 18 2010 22:56 muse5187 wrote:
Usually not into all the "fear-protection-takeawayrightsthings), but this doesn't bother me. I'd rather not ride an airplane with someone who has something to hide under his clothes.

On November 18 2010 22:56 muse5187 wrote:
Usually not into all the "fear-protection-takeawayrightsthings), but this doesn't bother me. I'd rather not ride an airplane with someone who has something to hide under his clothes.

On November 18 2010 22:58 Romantic wrote:

Now, if we extend that logic to people who may be hiding something on the bus, train, metro, sidewalk, grocery store and library, I'll take you seriously.

On November 18 2010 23:00 Tianx wrote:

My penis.

On November 18 2010 22:24 Jibba wrote:

My mother went through one, along with three other asian women (selected by giggling highschool dropouts from the TSA) and their tests were all considered inconclusive, meaning they needed to go through a cavity search. The "touch my junk" guy may be offended, but at least he doesn't have people sticking their fingers inside him. The requirements to work for the TSA are about the lowest of about any job in the country and they committed a few other transgressions as well, even though all the women followed orders. My mother has been a Silver/Gold flyer for 10+ years now, and needless to say she doesn't want to fly anymore. There may be an investigation or worse, we don't know at this point.

So there's your anecdotal invasion of privacy. It wasn't due to the technology, it was due to the people operating it. There's a random chance (or not so random if you strike the fancy of the agents) you will need a cavity search in order to fly in the United States. Does anyone think a cavity search should ever be required to fly?

On November 18 2010 22:56 muse5187 wrote:
Usually not into all the "fear-protection-takeawayrightsthings), but this doesn't bother me. I'd rather not ride an airplane with someone who has something to hide under his clothes.

On November 18 2010 23:00 Tianx wrote:

My penis.

User was temp banned for this post.

On November 18 2010 23:02 Tianx wrote:

Also, if this actually made people safer than you would have an argument based on how much you value your privacy vs. how much you value safety. Since what it actually does is open you up to abuse and makes you less safe, it is stupid.

On November 18 2010 23:02 Manifesto7 wrote:


No offense but this is hard to believe. When I worked for Customs in Canada we could not do cavity searches and had to have a doctor do it, and Customs ranks above airport security by a mile. If what you say is actually true, it is beyond bizarre.

On November 18 2010 23:00 muse5187 wrote:


Last time I checked they haven't started blowing up bus, trains, or grocery stores where I live. Give it a few more years.

On November 18 2010 23:08 Romantic wrote:

Yeah, it is really making me think that if it happened it certainly wasn't a legal affair. Doesn't make sense on a whole lot of levels.

On November 18 2010 23:09 Romantic wrote:

People haven't blown up planes where you live either.

Checkmate.

On November 18 2010 23:02 deesee wrote:
Are people really suggesting they don't think that, if we could prevent danger with a practical invention, we should - because of what somebody else might or might not see?

On November 18 2010 23:16 Dagobert wrote:

Well, we can be 99.9 repeating % sure that no passenger on any plane carries anything dangerous if we thoroughly interview every single passenger, look up their criminal record, test them for mental disorders, perform a cavity search, x-ray, handcuff them to the seat and hire guards for every flight. This would surely reduce the threat of passengers pulling crap on the plane, but would you want that to happen? Would it make sense to give up freedom for (what is actually) the illusion of safety?

I wouldn't. Not in this scenario and not in the 'light' scenario.
I as a normal citizen am more likely to die in a traffic accident than of a 'terrorist attack'. I don't give a fuck about other people's illusion of a great lingering terrorist threat and I will not allow others gullibility' to lead to the very realistic possibility of me being deprived of my rights.

On November 18 2010 23:14 muse5187 wrote:


No but they did bring box cutters on their person then force the planes to drive into buildings, where they then exploded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103 <--- blown up on way back to USA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Chesterton_Crash

*real checkmate*

On November 18 2010 23:21 Romantic wrote:

1933...1988... I am overwhelmed by the danger ^______^. Luckily some administrative bureaucrats have made me safe w\the nakey scanners.

Box cutter problem was solved with metal detectors and allowing pilots to carry guns, BTW.

On November 18 2010 22:24 Jibba wrote:

My mother went through one, along with three other asian women (selected by giggling highschool dropouts from the TSA) and their tests were all considered inconclusive, meaning they needed to go through a cavity search. The "touch my junk" guy may be offended, but at least he doesn't have people sticking their fingers inside him. The requirements to work for the TSA are about the lowest of about any job in the country and they committed a few other transgressions as well, even though all the women followed orders. My mother has been a Silver/Gold flyer for 10+ years now, and needless to say she doesn't want to fly anymore. There may be an investigation or worse, we don't know at this point.

So there's your anecdotal invasion of privacy. It wasn't due to the technology, it was due to the people operating it. There's a random chance (or not so random if you strike the fancy of the agents) you will need a cavity search in order to fly in the United States. Does anyone think a cavity search should ever be required to fly?