|
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.
Look, I know you really want to counter his claim of brainwashing, but you aren't even making sense. The only thing that could possibly come close to indicating paranoia is his pointing out the more power is exerted the more sure of itself a State (or any authority, really) becomes.
That seems so obvious it should be a truism.
|
On November 19 2010 00:57 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 00:53 Ferrose wrote: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.
Yeah, I know that we have things like this because of paranoia. But I can't stand the people who act like America is going to be some police state where we're all monitored 24/7. It's not gonna happen : /
|
On November 19 2010 00:55 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
If some people get their kicks by watching nude scans of me then it´s fine by me, that's quite flattering.
If it's flattering, not just post pics of yourself nude online? Maybe you do already?
People in this thread should recheck their thinking.
Fear of government = paranoia
Fear of terrorism that government insists is a huge issue = perfectly ok, scan me nude please
Now go back through history and remind yourself what various governments have done to their citizens.
|
On November 19 2010 00:59 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 00:57 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 19 2010 00:53 Ferrose wrote: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. Yeah, I know that we have things like this because of paranoia. But I can't stand the people who act like America is going to be some police state where we're all monitored 24/7. It's not gonna happen : /
I don't think anyone in here thinks it will become a 1984 or anything.
I understand the frustration. Alex Jones has caused me to rage so much indirectly through the people who religiously visit infowars that I have considered joining the mujahideen and jihading his outpost wherever the hell it is.
That said, you know, a police state would give people jobs. That would be an improvement 
|
On November 19 2010 00:59 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 00:57 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 19 2010 00:53 Ferrose wrote: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. Yeah, I know that we have things like this because of paranoia. But I can't stand the people who act like America is going to be some police state where we're all monitored 24/7. It's not gonna happen : /
We already are a police state dude.
|
Here's a novel idea: can we finally step off our high-horse, acknowledge that profiling works, and start profiling people at airports in lieu of this new state-sponsored sexual molestation? Israelis don't feel up old grandmothers at their airports, and they don't seem to be have any problems with airline security.
|
On November 19 2010 01:03 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 00:59 Ferrose wrote:On November 19 2010 00:57 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 19 2010 00:53 Ferrose wrote: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. Yeah, I know that we have things like this because of paranoia. But I can't stand the people who act like America is going to be some police state where we're all monitored 24/7. It's not gonna happen : / I don't think anyone in here thinks it will become a 1984 or anything. I understand the frustration. Alex Jones has caused me to rage so much indirectly through the people who religiously visit infowars that I have considered joining the mujahideen and jihading his outpost wherever the hell it is. That said, you know, a police state would give people jobs. That would be an improvement
No it wouldn't, the USSR gave everyone jobs. Sorry but this type of thinking is dangerously naive.
Who has killed more people throughout history? Ragtag groups of terrorists or governments?
|
Paranoid? Brainwashing? What?
If you think the main issue isn't whether you have something to hide or not, then I get the feeling you're making a big deal out of something that is neither big nor related to the immediate entry into a scanning procedure.
Look, if the government or whoever decided they just got to probe around inside you or imprison you whenever they felt like it at an airport that would be an invasion of privacy. Huge invasion. But when the argument against is coming down to people saying stuff about some kind of unjust theft of freedom and privacy and dignity I have to take a step back. Even though I'm speaking about what I find it to be in a very personal manner, if it is being implemented and you have no say in it, and you find it unreasonable, then don't fly. It'd be wonderful if everything in the world was reasonable to all of us, but I guess some people have attached some notion that their lives or liberties are being severely impacted by having one other person briefly stare at a rendering of the contours of their body.
If I were detained and searched in an invasive manner after also having been physically forced to choose air travel, then I would argue that privacy and freedom are being trampled all over.
|
On November 19 2010 01:05 xDaunt wrote:
Here's a novel idea: can we finally step off our high-horse, acknowledge that profiling works, and start profiling people at airports in lieu of this new state-sponsored sexual molestation? Israelis don't feel up old grandmothers at their airports, and they don't seem to be have any problems with airline security.
Yeah, they just have problems with security everywhere. Israel is possible the worst example you could come up with when it comes to how to make a secure nation.
|
On November 19 2010 01:05 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:03 Romantic wrote:On November 19 2010 00:59 Ferrose wrote:On November 19 2010 00:57 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 19 2010 00:53 Ferrose wrote: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. Yeah, I know that we have things like this because of paranoia. But I can't stand the people who act like America is going to be some police state where we're all monitored 24/7. It's not gonna happen : / I don't think anyone in here thinks it will become a 1984 or anything. I understand the frustration. Alex Jones has caused me to rage so much indirectly through the people who religiously visit infowars that I have considered joining the mujahideen and jihading his outpost wherever the hell it is. That said, you know, a police state would give people jobs. That would be an improvement No it wouldn't, the USSR gave everyone jobs. Sorry but this type of thinking is dangerously naive. Who has killed more people throughout history? Ragtag groups of terrorists or governments?
I am kidding.
The answer to that question is governments, good sir. Governments without any meaningful competition, I might add.
@deesee I really am annoyed by the, "don't fly" argument. The government is imposing itself between you and the airlines and it is taken for granted that they can do this to the degree of electronic strip searches.
If the government decided tomorrow that in order to visit Disneyland you had to do 38 pushups, memorize a string of 20 numbers, and go through nakey scanners, would you just say, "well, don't go to Disneyland!".
You display a fundamental submission to authority which I find disturbing, my friend.
|
On November 19 2010 01:08 deesee wrote:
Paranoid? Brainwashing? What?
If you think the main issue isn't whether you have something to hide or not, then I get the feeling you're making a big deal out of something that is neither big nor related to the immediate entry into a scanning procedure.
Look, if the government or whoever decided they just got to probe around inside you or imprison you whenever they felt like it at an airport that would be an invasion of privacy. Huge invasion. But when the argument against is coming down to people saying stuff about some kind of unjust theft of freedom and privacy and dignity I have to take a step back. Even though I'm speaking about what I find it to be in a very personal manner, if it is being implemented and you have no say in it, and you find it unreasonable, then don't fly. It'd be wonderful if everything in the world was reasonable to all of us, but I guess some people have attached some notion that their lives or liberties are being severely impacted by having one other person briefly stare at a rendering of the contours of their body.
If I were detained and searched in an invasive manner after also having been physically forced to choose air travel, then I would argue that privacy and freedom are being trampled all over.
You don't establish a nation wide gulag overnight. You get people used to checkpoints slowly. First airports, then banks, then grocery stores, etc. This isn't a big deal because 9/11 is the real big deal. This would have zero support if not for 9/11, and the US government is responsible for that. We are effectively letting the perps of 9/11 have more control. Tell me that isn't a big issue.
|
I agree that too much government control is a very bad thing. I guess I'm all right with more control than other people are though. 
|
The question is :
Does it come with Facebook integration ?
|
On November 19 2010 01:11 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:08 deesee wrote:
Paranoid? Brainwashing? What?
If you think the main issue isn't whether you have something to hide or not, then I get the feeling you're making a big deal out of something that is neither big nor related to the immediate entry into a scanning procedure.
Look, if the government or whoever decided they just got to probe around inside you or imprison you whenever they felt like it at an airport that would be an invasion of privacy. Huge invasion. But when the argument against is coming down to people saying stuff about some kind of unjust theft of freedom and privacy and dignity I have to take a step back. Even though I'm speaking about what I find it to be in a very personal manner, if it is being implemented and you have no say in it, and you find it unreasonable, then don't fly. It'd be wonderful if everything in the world was reasonable to all of us, but I guess some people have attached some notion that their lives or liberties are being severely impacted by having one other person briefly stare at a rendering of the contours of their body.
If I were detained and searched in an invasive manner after also having been physically forced to choose air travel, then I would argue that privacy and freedom are being trampled all over. You don't establish a nation wide gulag overnight. You get people used to checkpoints slowly. First airports, then banks, then grocery stores, etc. This isn't a big deal because 9/11 is the real big deal. This would have zero support if not for 9/11, and the US government is responsible for that. We are effectively letting the perps of 9/11 have more control. Tell me that isn't a big issue.
The media didn't have anything to fuel the 9/11 fears?
Or are you saying that the US government itself conducted the 9/11 attacks?
|
On November 18 2010 22:24 Jibba wrote:
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?
Violations of authority are going to happen regardless of what technology is used. I think most people would be fine with tighter regulation on how cavity searches are performed, but the fact that there are some people overstepping their bounds should not condemn things as a whole.
|
The issue here is that the federal government is mandating airports to either put the TSA crew in or follow their security guidelines, instead of allowing each airport to manage their own affairs. This is a classic example of central planning and fails for the very general reasons of lack of information, feedback, incentives, etc.
Before the state intervened, I believe airplane personnel were equipped with guns onboard. Guys with box cutters? Non-issue.
|
On November 19 2010 01:14 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:11 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 19 2010 01:08 deesee wrote:
Paranoid? Brainwashing? What?
If you think the main issue isn't whether you have something to hide or not, then I get the feeling you're making a big deal out of something that is neither big nor related to the immediate entry into a scanning procedure.
Look, if the government or whoever decided they just got to probe around inside you or imprison you whenever they felt like it at an airport that would be an invasion of privacy. Huge invasion. But when the argument against is coming down to people saying stuff about some kind of unjust theft of freedom and privacy and dignity I have to take a step back. Even though I'm speaking about what I find it to be in a very personal manner, if it is being implemented and you have no say in it, and you find it unreasonable, then don't fly. It'd be wonderful if everything in the world was reasonable to all of us, but I guess some people have attached some notion that their lives or liberties are being severely impacted by having one other person briefly stare at a rendering of the contours of their body.
If I were detained and searched in an invasive manner after also having been physically forced to choose air travel, then I would argue that privacy and freedom are being trampled all over. You don't establish a nation wide gulag overnight. You get people used to checkpoints slowly. First airports, then banks, then grocery stores, etc. This isn't a big deal because 9/11 is the real big deal. This would have zero support if not for 9/11, and the US government is responsible for that. We are effectively letting the perps of 9/11 have more control. Tell me that isn't a big issue. The media didn't have anything to fuel the 9/11 fears? Or are you saying that the US government itself conducted the 9/11 attacks?
Not that it was a government wide OP, but factions inside the US government definitely played a huge role.
|
On November 19 2010 01:11 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:08 deesee wrote:
Paranoid? Brainwashing? What?
If you think the main issue isn't whether you have something to hide or not, then I get the feeling you're making a big deal out of something that is neither big nor related to the immediate entry into a scanning procedure.
Look, if the government or whoever decided they just got to probe around inside you or imprison you whenever they felt like it at an airport that would be an invasion of privacy. Huge invasion. But when the argument against is coming down to people saying stuff about some kind of unjust theft of freedom and privacy and dignity I have to take a step back. Even though I'm speaking about what I find it to be in a very personal manner, if it is being implemented and you have no say in it, and you find it unreasonable, then don't fly. It'd be wonderful if everything in the world was reasonable to all of us, but I guess some people have attached some notion that their lives or liberties are being severely impacted by having one other person briefly stare at a rendering of the contours of their body.
If I were detained and searched in an invasive manner after also having been physically forced to choose air travel, then I would argue that privacy and freedom are being trampled all over. You don't establish a nation wide gulag overnight. You get people used to checkpoints slowly. First airports, then banks, then grocery stores, etc. This isn't a big deal because 9/11 is the real big deal. This would have zero support if not for 9/11, and the US government is responsible for that. We are effectively letting the perps of 9/11 have more control. Tell me that isn't a big issue.
Are we suggesting that these body scanners are on the road to establishing an evil "gulag" state? doesn't that imply that the identity checking and passports are also leading to the same thing?
Won't that all just lead back to arguing to get rid of every sort of verification and security procedure? After all, if we're being 'told' we need to do this or that by the government...well, it must be one step towards the end of freedom.
Are you pro-anarchy?
|
On November 19 2010 01:18 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:14 Ferrose wrote:On November 19 2010 01:11 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 19 2010 01:08 deesee wrote:
Paranoid? Brainwashing? What?
If you think the main issue isn't whether you have something to hide or not, then I get the feeling you're making a big deal out of something that is neither big nor related to the immediate entry into a scanning procedure.
Look, if the government or whoever decided they just got to probe around inside you or imprison you whenever they felt like it at an airport that would be an invasion of privacy. Huge invasion. But when the argument against is coming down to people saying stuff about some kind of unjust theft of freedom and privacy and dignity I have to take a step back. Even though I'm speaking about what I find it to be in a very personal manner, if it is being implemented and you have no say in it, and you find it unreasonable, then don't fly. It'd be wonderful if everything in the world was reasonable to all of us, but I guess some people have attached some notion that their lives or liberties are being severely impacted by having one other person briefly stare at a rendering of the contours of their body.
If I were detained and searched in an invasive manner after also having been physically forced to choose air travel, then I would argue that privacy and freedom are being trampled all over. You don't establish a nation wide gulag overnight. You get people used to checkpoints slowly. First airports, then banks, then grocery stores, etc. This isn't a big deal because 9/11 is the real big deal. This would have zero support if not for 9/11, and the US government is responsible for that. We are effectively letting the perps of 9/11 have more control. Tell me that isn't a big issue. The media didn't have anything to fuel the 9/11 fears? Or are you saying that the US government itself conducted the 9/11 attacks? Not that it was a government wide OP, but factions inside the US government definitely played a huge role.
Is there a source for this?
|
Two more funfacts about the nude scanners:
1. the estimated chance of getting cancer is equal to the estimated chance of dying in a terrorist attack. (cource)
2. in Germany these ***ing scanners don't even work properly. Alarm goes of in almost 100% of the cases, triggered even by folds in a skirt, apparently (good thing, we buy quality scanners for 250k Euro each, source, in German).
Also, I hear that Janet Napolitano who fiercely argues in favor of these scanners refuses to be scanned by them. That should make you think, I guess.
Also, to those people whi tink my previous post was too paranoid: maybe lets meet in the middle between my paranoia and yours - that may provide a healthy balance between liberty and safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
