|
On November 18 2010 23:16 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
A chest x-ray is depriving you of your rights? Get over yourself.
|
On November 18 2010 23:24 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 23:21 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 23:14 muse5187 wrote:On November 18 2010 23:09 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 23:00 muse5187 wrote:On November 18 2010 22:58 Romantic wrote: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. 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. Last time I checked they haven't started blowing up bus, trains, or grocery stores where I live. Give it a few more years. People haven't blown up planes where you live either. Checkmate.  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* 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. I proved you wrong now you change subject with false facts. Pilots no long carry guns, and when it was allowed less than 9% were armed. Also plenty of sharp materials that do not set off metal alarm.
No, you proved yourself wrong. By opening up to such a wide degree you've allowed me to cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing as a reason all cars should be scanned and the persons in them before being allowed on the road.
|
On November 18 2010 23:28 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 23:24 muse5187 wrote:On November 18 2010 23:21 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 23:14 muse5187 wrote:On November 18 2010 23:09 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 23:00 muse5187 wrote:On November 18 2010 22:58 Romantic wrote: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. 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. Last time I checked they haven't started blowing up bus, trains, or grocery stores where I live. Give it a few more years. People haven't blown up planes where you live either. Checkmate. 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* 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. I proved you wrong now you change subject with false facts. Pilots no long carry guns, and when it was allowed less than 9% were armed. Also plenty of sharp materials that do not set off metal alarm. No, you proved yourself wrong. By opening up to such a wide degree you've allowed me to cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing as a reason all cars should be scanned and the persons in them before being allowed on the road.
I understand you fail to see differences in things, but it doesn't excuse you to post things that are irrelevant.. I'm only going to say this once and hopefully you will understand. In reality airplanes are very different matter than a car.
The only reason I posted those links was because you said:
On November 18 2010 22:58 Romantic wrote:People haven't blown up planes where you live either. Checkmate.
So I posted two links to american planes being blown up in the air. What I'm saying is, lets just keep things in context yes?
|
On October 23 2008 21:42 niteReloaded wrote:
Some terrorists reportedly carried the bombs in their anus...
hmm...
...
ya..
wow pretty soon we will have to get rectum cavity search like they do in prison ;_;
|
On November 18 2010 23:32 muse5187 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 23:28 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 23:24 muse5187 wrote:On November 18 2010 23:21 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 23:14 muse5187 wrote:On November 18 2010 23:09 Romantic wrote:On November 18 2010 23:00 muse5187 wrote:On November 18 2010 22:58 Romantic wrote: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. 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. Last time I checked they haven't started blowing up bus, trains, or grocery stores where I live. Give it a few more years. People haven't blown up planes where you live either. Checkmate. 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* 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. I proved you wrong now you change subject with false facts. Pilots no long carry guns, and when it was allowed less than 9% were armed. Also plenty of sharp materials that do not set off metal alarm. No, you proved yourself wrong. By opening up to such a wide degree you've allowed me to cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing as a reason all cars should be scanned and the persons in them before being allowed on the road. I understand you fail to see differences in things, but it doesn't excuse you to post things that are irrelevant.. I'm only going to say this once and hopefully you will understand. In reality airplanes are very different matter than a car. The only reason I posted those links was because you said: Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 22:58 Romantic wrote:People haven't blown up planes where you live either. Checkmate. So I posted two links to american planes being blown up in the air.
If you are having a semantics argument with me about "where you live" and what that means, then by all means continue. I let you define it, then I used the same broad criteria to show you why cars need to be scanned for our safety. You also claimed nobody blows up cars where you live, which, under your broad scale, is untrue.
If your only problem with scanning cars is it is too difficult and time consuming to do, then I think I'll let that stand by itself as evidence of your disdain for individuals.
|
On November 18 2010 23:21 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 23:16 Dagobert wrote: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?
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. But you are too much of a coward to step in front of a scanner for 10 seconds just to be safe because you are insecure about your body? That's what I get from the people that seem to resist these scanners.
Hit the nail on the head. That's what I'm thinking. And the outrageous (Yeah, I agree) scenarios like the one above are something I'd like to answer directly.
Yes, they are solutions. But they're grossly time consuming, and are a far greater discomfort for the entire duration of the flight compared to stepping into and out of a scanner. No, it would not make sense to give up your freedoms for (what IS actually) safety in that case.
The scanner takes all that time and reduces it to a fraction of what's being suggested. It takes away the invasive prodding and personal history probing. All the process asks is that you stand still and ignore one person sitting by a computer screen for a moment.
It's practical. I'll keep saying that until the words lose all meaning. It takes next to no time and physically it takes nothing from you, for an extra layer of protection. Is it worth it? I can't say no.
|
put a blur bar over the boy and girl parts? lol
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 18 2010 23:02 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 22:24 Jibba wrote: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. 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? 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.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/11/new-thorough-pat-down-procedure-expands-nationwide.html
I have no idea how physical it actually got. As you can imagine, I didn't press for details. She certainly felt violated, and was pretty enraged when she saw it was all asian women being chosen.
|
This has been going on for quite some time now and has already been causing a number of childish problems even among Air Port Security Members and other Airport Employees who are required to step through this machine everyday prior to their work.
Apparently a lot of mocking goes on regarding the size of peoples genitals and things like that.
|
The problem, of course, is not the technology or it's ideal application but with the training and professionalism of poorly paid and educated airport employees.
But just because that part of the system is broken doesn't mean we should work on other parts of it. You can have two of the following:
1) Higher airport fees for better paid and trained staff
2) Embarassment and privacy invasion due to large scale sweeps of security
3) Bad security measures and a greater risk of being hijacked/bombed/etc.
Pick.
|
4) Reasonable and noninvasive security measures based on cooperation of individuals and airlines, not top-down humiliation and incompetence from government unelected bureaucracy who simultaneously create the problem then try to fix it. Likely primarily an intelligence based system that works well in other nations, such as Israel as on the previous pages.
|
When everyone is naked, it isn't losing your dignity, to think that is immature and stupid. What, will some airport security guy, who does this thing for a living, make fun of your small boobs or weirdly shaped sack? First off, I doubt it highly. Contrary to popular belief, you aren't the most important thing in the world, and very few people actually care about your naked body.
Second off, I agree with this stuff, I'd rather deal with a quick body scan, which doesn't mean anything to anyone, rather than deal with a terrorist on my flight.
|
Horray for yet another example of what i like to call "Feel-good solutions". You know, solutions that makes you feel like you are doing something to solve a problem but in reality does absolutely nothing.
You honestly think this will help, even slightly? I personally dont. If a person is willing to kill himself in order to hurt other people, there is no stopping that person. All this does is to remove the privacy and rights of innocents while making them feel good about it, so its possible to ignore that the real problem is not actually being solved in any significant way.
Horray for FUD.
|
I am shocked to see so many people agreeing with naked scanners. Seems like they were successfully brainwashed with the - "you have nothing to hide, so its no problem if big brother watches, right?"
The main issue is not whether you have anything to hide or not. It is about how much privacy you are entitled to independent of whether you anything to hide or not. The more control a state enacts, the more it assumes everybody to be guilty which is ridiculous given the proportion of actual terrorsist compared to the population.
I think that the right to privacy along with innocent until proven guilty is one of the central achievements of modern democracies and - frankly - some people here don't seem to understand what an extraordinary value it is. Maybe people just have a hard time valueing things they did not have to fight for.
|
On November 19 2010 00:39 mgj wrote:
Horray for yet another example of what i like to call "Feel-good solutions". You know, solutions that makes you feel like you are doing something to solve a problem but in reality does absolutely nothing.
You honestly think this will help, even slightly? I personally dont. If a person is willing to kill himself in order to hurt other people, there is no stopping that person. All this does is to remove the privacy and rights of innocents while making them feel good about it, so its possible to ignore that the real problem is not actually being solved in any significant way.
Horray for FUD.
Hahaha, FUD. I have never heard that before, thank you.
FUD 24\7 is the best way to run a society as mucked up as the one claimed by the inhabitants of this fair nation.
|
On November 18 2010 22:24 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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?
Couple questions, is the scanner a replacement for te old metal detector or is it a "random search" that you have to go through these new scanners
also, i thought they don't strip search unless you refuse to go through the scanner, in which a cavity search is possible, but if you just go through the scanner you wont run that risk of a cavity search, or so i thought. What happened exactly at the airport to your mom and friends?
|
On November 19 2010 00:26 Msrobinson wrote:
When everyone is naked, it isn't losing your dignity, to think that is immature and stupid. What, will some airport security guy, who does this thing for a living, make fun of your small boobs or weirdly shaped sack? First off, I doubt it highly. Contrary to popular belief, you aren't the most important thing in the world, and very few people actually care about your naked body.
Second off, I agree with this stuff, I'd rather deal with a quick body scan, which doesn't mean anything to anyone, rather than deal with a terrorist on my flight.
But if I don't want someone to see my massive ballsack then that's an invasion of my privacy. And to YOU it's immature and stupid.
|
On November 19 2010 00:44 Electric.Jesus wrote:
I am shocked to see so many people agreeing with naked scanners. Seems like they were successfully brainwashed with the - "you have nothing to hide, so its no problem if big brother watches, right?"
The main issue is not whether you have anything to hide or not. It is about how much privacy you are entitled to independent of whether you anything to hide or not. The more control a state enacts, the more it assumes everybody to be guilty which is ridiculous given the proportion of actual terrorsist compared to the population.
I think that the right to privacy along with innocent until proven guilty is one of the central achievements of modern democracies and - frankly - some people here don't seem to understand what an extraordinary value it is. Maybe people just have a hard time valueing things they did not have to fight for.
It seems like you've been brainwashed by paranoia.
|
If some people get their kicks by watching nude scans of me then it´s fine by me, that's quite flattering.
|
On November 19 2010 00:53 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 00:44 Electric.Jesus wrote:
I am shocked to see so many people agreeing with naked scanners. Seems like they were successfully brainwashed with the - "you have nothing to hide, so its no problem if big brother watches, right?"
The main issue is not whether you have anything to hide or not. It is about how much privacy you are entitled to independent of whether you anything to hide or not. The more control a state enacts, the more it assumes everybody to be guilty which is ridiculous given the proportion of actual terrorsist compared to the population.
I think that the right to privacy along with innocent until proven guilty is one of the central achievements of modern democracies and - frankly - some people here don't seem to understand what an extraordinary value it is. Maybe people just have a hard time valueing things they did not have to fight for. It seems like you've been brainwashed by paranoia.
This is such an ironic comment because they whole reason these body scanners are being pushed is because of propaganda that has been pushed to make people paranoid about terrorism.
It's really not even worth talking about this SMALL issue to people who are too delusional to see the truth behind the HUGE issue of 9/11.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
