So, apparently, various airports in Europe and Australia have been/will be testing these new 3D scanners, which basically scan through your clothing and create a nude image of your whole body. This is said to help find explosives and knives not being detected by current scanning technology.
I am kind of shocked by these pictures because I doubt that the added security is in any justifiable relationship to the massive loss of privacy/dignity. Although they currently say that it is still in testing stages and they won't force any passenger to use these whole body scans, I still am worried about the future application of this method. Who knows what will be next?
I'm going to take viagra and hit on the female security scanning personnel to make them hella uncomfortable. YEAH, LET'S SEE YOU INVADE MY PRIVACY NOW.
On October 23 2008 21:00 H_ wrote: I'm going to take viagra and hit on the female security scanning personnel to make them hella uncomfortable. YEAH, LET'S SEE YOU INVADE MY PRIVACY NOW.
On October 23 2008 21:47 Jizz wrote: those pictures are disssssturbing
So what? An x-ray image of your skeleton is disturbing, too. Honestly, I wouldn´t mind and I certainly wouldn´t lose my dignity. As long as they don´t save these pictures, I am fine with it.
"Good morning ma'am. Congratulations, you have been selected for our randomly-selected security checkup of the day and we would like to have someone other than an Arab for once. All you have to do is step through this scanner. Simple as that. We recommend you follow through with this test. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why refuse?"
Yeah read it today, too, but i don't think its that bad. I even think they should get mobile devices (in a bus or so), like they have in great britain. There are large polices controls at clubs from time to time, where you might have to strip naked in front of the police in their van in order for them to control if you are hiding drugs. I never neither got into one of these controls yet, nor did i ever see someone selling drugs in the clubs i am going to, so i don't think it is an issue in my area. But in other areas its much more common. In England they now use those nude body scanners to search everyone for drugs/weapons at such a razzia, which isn't such a massive infriction of privacy as the alternative. And it is also much faster.
On October 23 2008 21:00 H_ wrote: I'm going to take viagra and hit on the female security scanning personnel to make them hella uncomfortable. YEAH, LET'S SEE YOU INVADE MY PRIVACY NOW.
They probably still won't even notice it anyway.
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
Get ready for the news report on how hot females are suddenly more likely to be picked for "random" scans.
This is obviously going to be abused by some of the people on the job, unless they make females scan females only and males scan males only. Even if it's not a totally revealing nude picture, how do you think those women are going to feel knowing the guys at the station are scanning them solely to see them "naked"? Try not to think like a sex-deprived guy for once.
On October 24 2008 02:18 Liquid_Turbo wrote: Who cares man. After viewing 50 bodies on the job, you'd get desensitized. It's like saying how doctors violate privacy.
Are you desensitized to porn?
Does a security guard have to go through 8+ years of college and med school to get his position?
On October 24 2008 02:34 Bill307 wrote: Get ready for the news report on how hot females are suddenly more likely to be picked for "random" scans.
This is obviously going to be abused by some of the people on the job, unless they make females scan females only and males scan males only. Even if it's not a totally revealing nude picture, how do you think those women are going to feel knowing the guys at the station are scanning them solely to see them "naked"? Try not to think like a sex-deprived guy for once.
See I took a similar perspective, but I aligned myself more with the perspective of a sex-deprived guy. I want to work at the airports now lol
On October 23 2008 21:00 H_ wrote: I'm going to take viagra and hit on the female security scanning personnel to make them hella uncomfortable. YEAH, LET'S SEE YOU INVADE MY PRIVACY NOW.
On October 23 2008 21:00 H_ wrote: I'm going to take viagra and hit on the female security scanning personnel to make them hella uncomfortable. YEAH, LET'S SEE YOU INVADE MY PRIVACY NOW.
ZING! LOL!!
you are also asian and therefore possess a small penis.
assuming you are referring to GI's comment anyway. Otherwise, I retract my statement!
well since the technological trick here is that the ultrasound passes through clothes i hereby prophecy that the next-generation high-end airplane-hijacking weapons will be made of exactly that to bypass the scanner. FUCKING CLOTHES AS WEAPONS TO HIJACK THE PLANE. so scan that. gl hf
On October 24 2008 03:35 cyronc wrote: well since the technological trick here is that the ultrasound passes through clothes i hereby prophecy that the next-generation high-end airplane-hijacking weapons will be made of exactly that to bypass the scanner. FUCKING CLOTHES AS WEAPONS TO HIJACK THE PLANE. so scan that. gl hf
Ban clothes on airplanes for security reasons!!!! If we fly nude we will fly safe for sure!!
On October 24 2008 03:35 cyronc wrote: well since the technological trick here is that the ultrasound passes through clothes i hereby prophecy that the next-generation high-end airplane-hijacking weapons will be made of exactly that to bypass the scanner. FUCKING CLOTHES AS WEAPONS TO HIJACK THE PLANE. so scan that. gl hf
Ban clothes on airplanes for security reasons!!!! If we fly nude we will fly safe for sure!!
rofl !!
On October 24 2008 02:34 Bill307 wrote: Get ready for the news report on how hot females are suddenly more likely to be picked for "random" scans.
This is obviously going to be abused by some of the people on the job, unless they make females scan females only and males scan males only. Even if it's not a totally revealing nude picture, how do you think those women are going to feel knowing the guys at the station are scanning them solely to see them "naked"? Try not to think like a sex-deprived guy for once.
i don't think this is a good way to think of it, because no matter how hot the girl is, i dont think watching these black and white x-ray scans would turn me on, it just looks kinda weird
On October 24 2008 02:34 Bill307 wrote: Get ready for the news report on how hot females are suddenly more likely to be picked for "random" scans.
This is obviously going to be abused by some of the people on the job, unless they make females scan females only and males scan males only. Even if it's not a totally revealing nude picture, how do you think those women are going to feel knowing the guys at the station are scanning them solely to see them "naked"? Try not to think like a sex-deprived guy for once.
i don't think this is a good way to think of it, because no matter how hot the girl is, i dont think watching these black and white x-ray scans would turn me on, it just looks kinda weird
"It wouldn't turn me on, therefore it isn't arousing to anyone."
I'm usually all for civil liberties and crap like that, but this isn't anything to get worked up about. Look at the images.
Seriously, flogging the dolphin to that shit is the equivalent of a horny 13 year old attempting to watch the Playboy channel through the blurry lines.
I'm astonished at how many people feel comfortable with that scan. Of course this is something to get worked about!
Apart from the fact that I doubt the need for this technology (any planes been hijacked with plastic explosives or bone carved knives? go paranoia!) right now, it could potentially open the doors for other areas and even abuse. Maybe next they will install these scanners in every supermarket to catch shoplifters? Or trains? Maybe mosques?
On October 24 2008 06:36 Schnake wrote: Of course this is something to get worked about!
We need better quality pictures first!
On October 24 2008 06:36 Schnake wrote: Apart from the fact that I doubt the need for this technology (any planes been hijacked with plastic explosives or bone carved knives? go paranoia!) right now, it could potentially open the doors for other areas and even abuse. Maybe next they will install these scanners in every supermarket to catch shoplifters? Or trains? Maybe mosques?
Yeah, as we all know we already have X-rays at walmart so this is the logical next step.
On October 23 2008 20:48 Schnake wrote: So, apparently, various airports in Europe and Australia have been/will be testing these new 3D scanners, which basically scan through your clothing and create a nude image of your whole body. This is said to help find explosives and knives not being detected by current scanning technology.
I am kind of shocked by these pictures because I doubt that the added security is in any justifiable relationship to the massive loss of privacy/dignity. Although they currently say that it is still in testing stages and they won't force any passenger to use these whole body scans, I still am worried about the future application of this method. Who knows what will be next?
On October 24 2008 06:53 FzeroXx wrote: You guys really care if someone sees a black and white photo of you on a computer screen "naked" ??
Apathy is the ruination of our society and world. Thanks for bringing us one step close.
This. Slippery slope and all.
Either way, terrorists on airplanes don't kill that many people. I've never understood that fear, you should be way more afraid of lunatics on the road every time you get in a car than of terrorists on a plane.
Not to be insensitive, but by making us go through ever-increasing levels of security and violations of privacy in the name of "national security", they're accomplishing more than they ever did killing people. In fact, an interesting fact is that more inconveniences in airline travel actually kill more people since it makes more people drive, which is much much more dangerous.
On October 24 2008 06:53 FzeroXx wrote: You guys really care if someone sees a black and white photo of you on a computer screen "naked" ??
Apathy is the ruination of our society and world. Thanks for bringing us one step close.
This. Slippery slope and all.
Either way, terrorists on airplanes don't kill that many people. I've never understood that fear, you should be way more afraid of lunatics on the road every time you get in a car than of terrorists on a plane.
Not to be insensitive, but by making us go through ever-increasing levels of security and violations of privacy in the name of "national security", they're accomplishing more than they ever did killing people. In fact, an interesting fact is that more inconveniences in airline travel actually kill more people since it makes more people drive, which is much much more dangerous.
Without airport security, alot more planes would be blown up. I imagine it would be hard to argue otherwise.
Sorry, I'm just not prudish enough to give a shit if someone sees me naked. It has nothing to do with my privacy. I don't want you staring in my windows, but if I'm going to board an international aircraft that could be a security risk to countries... I can understand why they would want to speed things up in making sure everyone is clean.
Apathy? I care about tons of shit, just not my right to hide things when going through international airports. Anything that speeds up flying = a'ok in my book.
On October 24 2008 06:53 FzeroXx wrote: You guys really care if someone sees a black and white photo of you on a computer screen "naked" ??
Apathy is the ruination of our society and world. Thanks for bringing us one step close.
This. Slippery slope and all.
Either way, terrorists on airplanes don't kill that many people. I've never understood that fear, you should be way more afraid of lunatics on the road every time you get in a car than of terrorists on a plane.
Not to be insensitive, but by making us go through ever-increasing levels of security and violations of privacy in the name of "national security", they're accomplishing more than they ever did killing people. In fact, an interesting fact is that more inconveniences in airline travel actually kill more people since it makes more people drive, which is much much more dangerous.
In fact, in the last 7 years, terrorists haven't killed hardly anyone in USA. Perhaps we should get rid of all security since terrorist attacks are so rare.
On October 24 2008 15:28 Mora wrote: i don't understand the gripe.
the airport security pulling you aside and having to strip search you is less of a violation or privacy than seeing an OUTLINE of your nude body?
honestly. if this means they have to do less strip-searches, it's a good thing.
I read a comment of a German journalist with pakistani heritage and apparently he had to strip down all clothes except for his underwear for a search.
His conversation went something like this: Security: "Have you been often to the United States?", Journalist: "Yes, why do you ask?" Security guy doesn't reply to this question. Security: "And you were a German citizen since your birth?" Journalist: "No, I had a Pakistani passport / was a Pakistani citizen in the past." He eyes the journalist again. Security: "Please follow me."
Compared to this, such a strip scanner definitely seems like an improvement but the problem there lies in the strip search policy in general.
Luckily, it seems as if these scanners will probably not be utilized in Germany although the police will start tests in a controlled environment at the end of this year: "Naturally any device that produces such images won't be used in Germany," Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said on the sidelines of a meetings of European Union Interior ministers in Brussels. The Christian Democrat stressed that national security shouldn't be made to look "farcical" to the general public. "I won't let the German police be thought of as peeping toms -- which they are not," he said.
Yeah, I heard that in the news report just a few minutes ago. This is definitely good news. I would neither like to be "scanned" nor I'd like to be one of the security people how has to look at those pictures all day. Imo these scanners are a punch in the face of privacy itself.
On October 23 2008 20:48 Schnake wrote: So, apparently, various airports in Europe and Australia have been/will be testing these new 3D scanners, which basically scan through your clothing and create a nude image of your whole body. This is said to help find explosives and knives not being detected by current scanning technology.
I am kind of shocked by these pictures because I doubt that the added security is in any justifiable relationship to the massive loss of privacy/dignity. Although they currently say that it is still in testing stages and they won't force any passenger to use these whole body scans, I still am worried about the future application of this method. Who knows what will be next?
On October 24 2008 06:53 FzeroXx wrote: You guys really care if someone sees a black and white photo of you on a computer screen "naked" ??
Apathy is the ruination of our society and world. Thanks for bringing us one step close.
This. Slippery slope and all.
Either way, terrorists on airplanes don't kill that many people. I've never understood that fear, you should be way more afraid of lunatics on the road every time you get in a car than of terrorists on a plane.
Not to be insensitive, but by making us go through ever-increasing levels of security and violations of privacy in the name of "national security", they're accomplishing more than they ever did killing people. In fact, an interesting fact is that more inconveniences in airline travel actually kill more people since it makes more people drive, which is much much more dangerous.
In fact, in the last 7 years, terrorists haven't killed hardly anyone in USA. Perhaps we should get rid of all security since terrorist attacks are so rare.
At least from the utilitarian point of view this makes sense. Think about it this way- everyone who flys is pretty rich (airplane flights arn't cheap). Let's assume just for fun they make 100k a year, or 11 dollars an hour for 24 hours a day for 365 days a year. You're wasting 15-30 minutes of their time every time they fly. So on a plane filled with 400 people, you're losing 2000 dollars just by the inefficiencies inherent in security. Multiply that out by 50000 flights every day, and you start to have real money.
I've also seen, by going to enough different airports, that its about protection of property first and the protection of people as a side effect. Why do I say this? I've seen several airports where there can be hundreds and hundreds of people with little to no security at the beginning stages of the airport, far more than could fit on a single plane. Yet as you get closer to the planes, that's when security gets crazy. If I was a business man and needed to protect my investment, I would know that since people naturally get on the planes, if I protect the planes I also protect SOME of the people, so its very easy to spin that its all about the safety of the people. But hey that's just an observation from first hand experience.
This is generating a lot of controversy on news sites lately, I think it is bump-worthy. I couldn't find any threads made at a later date (having searched Airport, TSA, Body Scanners, etc without finding one).
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.
Interesting. Never heard of this before, but as a person who is not a terrorist and have nothing to hide, I would be perfectly fine with them x-raying and seeing my cock and bollocks because they aren't there to look at a pair of tits or admire how well hung the man who just walked through is. Their job is to keep the airport and planes secure.
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.
I cannot really complain as long as they do not save the pictures. The only problem I see is with people who cannot get in the position to be scanned.
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.
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.
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...
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.
On October 23 2008 21:00 H_ wrote: I'm going to take viagra and hit on the female security scanning personnel to make them hella uncomfortable. YEAH, LET'S SEE YOU INVADE MY PRIVACY NOW.
They probably still won't even notice it anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
There are problems with your comparison:
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.
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.
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
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.
I have no problem with the fact that see me naked. The problem is with the radiation. I was told by x-ray technicians that you really should have a lead shield over your thyroid if you are a frequent flyer or it could be harmful to the thyroid.
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.
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?
There are problems with your comparison:
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 faster speed of planes making 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.
Airplanes are save unless you introduce a malfunction. Think about that argument again.
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.
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
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.
Size in the form of how many people will one explosion kill is relevant. Planes are also easier to control, because they don't interrupt their movement every few minutes or change passengers on flight. So one control point secures the flight for a lot of people for a long time, making it much easier and effective to implement such a strategy for planes than for cars.
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.
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?
There are problems with your comparison:
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 faster speed of planes making 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.
Airplanes are save unless you introduce a malfunction. Think about that argument again.
In case you invaluntarily didn't understand the point: One malfunction in a plane can confront hundreds of people with instant, unavoidable death. That's different from cars. It also means that it doesn't matter at all how safe unaffected planes are.
From what i know u have a choice to get the scan or to get patted down. i read when getting patted they check ur privates quite thoroughly, not mention they dont hold back on patting up kids, thats doesn't seem legal to do. if i ever get in this situation id properly go with the scan, its sucks that ur only choices are an evasion of privacy one way or the other. happy to be in aussi
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?
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.
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
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.
Size in the form of how many people will one explosion kill is relevant. Planes are also easier to control, because they don't interrupt their movement every few minutes or change passengers on flight. So one control point secures the flight for a lot of people for a long time, making it much easier and effective to implement such a strategy for planes than for cars.
Your only problem is it would be too hard to do it with cars (despite them being much more dangerous)? Could have said that earlier so I could have disregarded any attempt of rationalizing with you.
I'll grant you it is easier to violate privacy and reasonable bounds of freedom at centralized locations, but saying it is more effective is pretty hilarious considering the problem is near nonexistent to begin with.
You cannot avoid admitting you are singling out planes for electronic strip searches based on next to nothing forever.
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.
Dude the government is capable of some dumb shit, but I don't think cavity searches are in their handbooks. You should definitely go after that one.
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.
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
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.
Let me put it to you this way. If there was a full-body scanner that could be implemented to stop drunk drivers from driving the car, a full-body scanner at the door of the bus that could catch concealed weapons, or a full-body scanner that would stop all bomb-planters from getting close enough to cars to set up their surprises, I'd say "eh, why not?".
I agree, it's not practical in those situations. Nor is it entirely necessary for it to be a body scan. You could just as easily use breathalyzers, metal detectors or any number of counter-explosive detectors. even then, implementing that sort of thing into every car, bus and sidewalk we have? It's just not feasible.
However, it is a practical idea at airports, given the way passengers are filtered through in an orderly fashion, and again, because if there was a choice of target between my car and a plane, we all know which one we'd pick to inflict widespread harm or panic. If we all lined up at a terminal and passed through gates in a nice line just to get in our cars every morning, I wouldn't see why we shouldn't have some system, "invasive" or not, that will catch risks before they become disasters.
I'm aware of the fact that cars crash more often and fatalities due to travel on aircraft are far less frequent than other modes of transport. That doesn't change the fact that security is not an "all or nothing" - even if we can't make our roads safe, does that mean we should just abandon all our security measures at airports?
More people have died in drunk driving accidents than in plane hijackings, true. But this body scanner, in conjunction with existing safety measures, make sure that airline catastrophes are made as minimal as humanly possible. That is, until the privacy crowd have their say about it.
Can I ask what you actually think about the scanners and privacy?
Edit: @Jibba: That's just not cool, and you should definitely see what kind of action you can take. There will always be those people in the world who don't really respect others as much as they should. The more extreme cases are why they have these scanners, I guess.
I'm more of a perfect system kind of guy. If there was a process that could accurately gauge who was enough of a risk to be given a cavity search it'd be a wonderful (sort of) world, but sadly we just have to deal with those dumbasses who have nothing better to do than point at boobies and giggle.
On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote: I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day.
I'm not overly concerned about the privacy part, but I am concerned about this attitude. Truth is getting blown up, while on an airplane is not a huge threat. It never was. How many people have died in airplane based terrorist attacks? I'd guess less than 10000 in the last 30 years. About 1 million people die every year in traffic accidents around 30% of which is caused by driving under the influence of alcohol. I guess if the preferred MO of islamic terrorists was to get drunk and drive carelessly until they killed someone we would have mandatory alcohol tests in every car.
In general, we accept many risks for economic or cultural reasons, yet spend billions every year and waste travellers time because of a very minor problem.
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.
Dude the government is capable of some dumb shit, but I don't think cavity searches are in their handbooks. You should definitely go after that one.
It's being talked about now. It wasn't males doing the actual searches, I don't believe, but they were in charge of everything else at the scanner. They wouldn't even give her their names, and when it's going on, there's 0 recourse. You either get it done, or you don't fly. The worry is even now, what recourse is there?
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.
Dude the government is capable of some dumb shit, but I don't think cavity searches are in their handbooks. You should definitely go after that one.
It's being talked about now. It wasn't males doing the actual searches, I don't believe, but they were in charge of everything else at the scanner. They wouldn't even give her their names, and when it's going on, there's 0 recourse. You either get it done, or you don't fly. The worry is even now, what recourse is there?
You cannot walk away from the TSA guards either, a court has ruled. If you do the fine is like $20,000. How it doesn't violate unreasonable searches and seizures to make it illegal to refuse to be searched by TSA is beyond me.
I'm starting to think the TSA people (or people pretending to be TSA?) were just being weird little fucks and it isn't legal at all. Well, I thought that from the beginning, but I'm pretty damn sure now.
Why stop at such scanners, why not force everyone to be on the plane naked? Give them blankets to keep them warm and it should be perfectly safe. And why stop at planes? Explosions on metro stations can do nearly as much damage and nobody ever checks baggage there. Perhaps the same rules should count for that too.
On October 23 2008 21:47 Jizz wrote: those pictures are disssssturbing
So what? An x-ray image of your skeleton is disturbing, too. Honestly, I wouldn´t mind and I certainly wouldn´t lose my dignity. As long as they don´t save these pictures, I am fine with it.
The link takes you to the whole article, but here's the first bit for anyone not wanting to click over.
Leaked online: The body scanner images we were promised would never be saved or published
By Daniel Bates Last updated at 8:25 AM on 17th November 2010
Comments (33) Add to My Stories
It is the security breach they said would never happen.
Dozens of pictures showing members of the public being X-Rayed by the controversial new body scanners have been leaked online.
The 100 images show visitors to a Florida courthouse standing inside the machine as it takes their photograph - their intimate body parts clearly visible.
They were posted by technology blog Gizmodo after it emerged that US Marshals at the court had saved 35,000 images in breach of official rules.
On November 18 2010 21:41 deesee wrote: I'd prefer "guilty until proven innocent" over "alive until blown up" any day.
I'm not overly concerned about the privacy part, but I am concerned about this attitude. Truth is getting blown up, while on an airplane is not a huge threat. It never was. How many people have died in airplane based terrorist attacks? I'd guess less than 10000 in the last 30 years. About 1 million people die every year in traffic accidents around 30% of which is caused by driving under the influence of alcohol. I guess if the preferred MO of islamic terrorists was to get drunk and drive carelessly until they killed someone we would have mandatory alcohol tests in every car.
In general, we accept many risks for economic or cultural reasons, yet spend billions every year and waste travellers time because of a very minor problem.
I was exaggerating, I'll admit.
It may be a minor problem, but I don't think that means we should ignore it. We have the means to a practical safeguard. That's all. I don't think we should just say "eh, we're safe enough". One step further, I don't think it's really a sensible decision to give up a safety measure just because those guys watching the screen are going to giggle.
It's also quite deterring for any would-be hijackers, I imagine. Prevention is the best cure and all that.
I'm not well-versed enough to get into the economical side of the debate, so until airport body scanners are causing my relatives to wait in a terminal for months instead of hours, or causing my family to starve, I'm sticking to the privacy side of the topic.
On November 18 2010 22:36 Mothxal wrote: Why stop at such scanners, why not force everyone to be on the plane naked? Give them blankets to keep them warm and it should be perfectly safe. And why stop at planes? Explosions on metro stations can do nearly as much damage and nobody ever checks baggage there. Perhaps the same rules should count for that too.
I'm all for discussion, but stupid slippery slope arguments are completely useless and serve no other purpose than trolling the thread. May I kindly ask you to pull your head out of your ass.
On November 18 2010 22:36 Mothxal wrote: Why stop at such scanners, why not force everyone to be on the plane naked? Give them blankets to keep them warm and it should be perfectly safe. And why stop at planes? Explosions on metro stations can do nearly as much damage and nobody ever checks baggage there. Perhaps the same rules should count for that too.
I'm all for discussion, but stupid slippery slope arguments are completely useless and serve no other purpose than trolling the thread. May I kindly ask you to pull your head out of your ass.
We're trying to find boundaries. We have yet to find them.
On November 18 2010 22:34 Romantic wrote: Does your mother not speak English well or...?
Yeah, she became an American citizen a few years ago and her English sounds almost completely native. I don't have too much specific information beyond that. My father was also there, and he was kept in the dark, since he went through like normal. They're both very experienced business travelers, so it's not like they were wearing bulky or concealing clothes, they dress and pack to get through security as quickly as possible.
On October 23 2008 21:47 Jizz wrote: those pictures are disssssturbing
So what? An x-ray image of your skeleton is disturbing, too. Honestly, I wouldn´t mind and I certainly wouldn´t lose my dignity. As long as they don´t save these pictures, I am fine with it.
Leaked online: The body scanner images we were promised would never be saved or published
By Daniel Bates Last updated at 8:25 AM on 17th November 2010
Comments (33) Add to My Stories
It is the security breach they said would never happen.
Dozens of pictures showing members of the public being X-Rayed by the controversial new body scanners have been leaked online.
The 100 images show visitors to a Florida courthouse standing inside the machine as it takes their photograph - their intimate body parts clearly visible.
They were posted by technology blog Gizmodo after it emerged that US Marshals at the court had saved 35,000 images in breach of official rules.
Well, thank goodness it happened before they enforced its usage everywhere. Fuck airport security and it's flushing of time, money, and personal rights down the crapper just so that they can do things that don't actually increase how safe you are.
Profiling, which is rightfully banned, would be both less offensive and more effective at stopping actual terrorism than this sort of idiocy.
make 2 queues, one for the usual pat down while the other with the naked camera thing. Your choice people! I don't mind exposing my small genitals for a few seconds just to save a minutes in a queue ty.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I'm kind of bummed out at the number of people who are suggesting that because other things are more dangerous by frequency, this measure of security is stupid - a notion which I can't see coming from anywhere but an from outrage towards a perceived invasion of privacy. Should we have not allowed midwives to look at us when we were born? We didn't care then, why should we care now?
I'm really unsure of what other privacy we could be talking about here, unless it's just simply "they can see my bits". The random cavity search we heard about before IS a total invasion of personal privacy though.
Just because a bag in a train is less scrutinized shouldn't mean the same for one at an airport. 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 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.
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.
You don't know anything about my views so let's not even derail thread with such nonsense. Trust me no one is going to 'abuse' me I'm a grown man and I doubt some little kids at the airport want to really see my dick. And yes you're correct making sure no one has weapons on their person makes everyone in danger very good...
edit : also don't play the "wow you hate freedom" card because my posting record shows I LOVE ME SOME FREEDOM. This is just one of those annoyances I rather deal with.
edit2 : he got banned before another stupid response. T_T
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
haha for the record I'm not into cavity search as far as I know. Don't want you guys thinking I would like such a thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is currently illegal in the US. If this truly happened you should press charges.
The daily show with John Stewart had a couple great segments on these scanners in the United States. The first segment was on Nov. 15, 2010 and the second was a Lewis Black (stand up comedian) discussing a similar issue on the 16th.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 23:02 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 00:44 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 00:44 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 : /
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 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?
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 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.
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 01:08 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 01:08 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.
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.
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.
@EletricJesus lol. No surprise there, chances of dying in a terrorist attack are the same as the chances of dying from the ineffective and humiliating security measure. Hail the state.
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?
Yeah there are several sources all over the place. If you want a one stop shop check out pilots for 9/11 truth or architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. Alex Jones is a horrible source so don't bother with anything from him.
Also look into building 7 or just check out the videos of it collapsing and try to tell yourself it wasn't a demolition.
Another good one is the mossad agents documenting the twin tower collapses and then being deported to Israel without a real investigation as to what they were doing and how they knew it was going to happen. They were working for a mossad front company called urban moving systems that fled to Israel when the FBI attempted to investigate them. They also had another moving van that was pulled over and arrested in addition to the ones caught documenting 9/11 and the van was found to have explosive residue, they were also deported to Israel.
There is really so much evidence it's hard to even begin, books have been written about this.
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.
So if you had to go completely naked through a scanner, that would be alright aswell? Or lets say that the guard had to search you, while you were wearing nothing but your socks, that would be fine since "it isnt losing your dignity".
It is more likely that you get struck by lightning and die, than to get killed by terrorists, so why arent we walking around with lightning rods?
I dont get why people are so afraid of terrorists. And lets just say for a moment that a terrorist decided to bomb a flight, you dont think he could get past some body scanner if he planned it well enough? He obviously could if he really wanted to, and had the resources. You obviously do need some security, but this is just taking it too far, and it's only giving people a false sense of security. The reason i dont like this is not because they see my stuff, it's just because it's an inconvinience that does absolutely nothing, costs alot of money that might have been spent elsewhere.
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?
I'm suggesting we are already WELL down that road and the body scanners are just a stop along the way.
What does pro-anarchy have to do with this? That is a red herring.
@EletricJesus lol. No surprise there, chances of dying in a terrorist attack are the same as the chances of dying from the ineffective and humiliating security measure. Hail the state.
Yeah. The chances are so low. The security is going to try to make it to none, but I don't think it's possible. Even if no one fussed about it, someone would find a way to circumvent the system.
@ Treemonkeys: If you end up being right, I plan to move away from America soon anyway. So hopefully I'll be out by the time America is full of labor camps
@EletricJesus lol. No surprise there, chances of dying in a terrorist attack are the same as the chances of dying from the ineffective and humiliating security measure. Hail the state.
Yeah. The chances are so low. The security is going to try to make it to none, but I don't think it's possible. Even if no one fussed about it, someone would find a way to circumvent the system.
@ Treemonkeys: If you end up being right, I plan to move away from America soon anyway. So hopefully I'll be out by the time America is full of labor camps
Historically by the time it's obvious that I'm right, they won't be letting people out. So hopefully soon is really soon.
@EletricJesus lol. No surprise there, chances of dying in a terrorist attack are the same as the chances of dying from the ineffective and humiliating security measure. Hail the state.
Yeah. The chances are so low. The security is going to try to make it to none, but I don't think it's possible. Even if no one fussed about it, someone would find a way to circumvent the system.
@ Treemonkeys: If you end up being right, I plan to move away from America soon anyway. So hopefully I'll be out by the time America is full of labor camps
Historically by the time it's obvious that I'm right, they won't be letting people out. So hopefully soon is really soon.
Let's hope I can earn a four year Bachelor's degree in a few months.
On November 19 2010 01:34 Romantic wrote: Treemonkey, you've got it all wrong man. They can't make money off of you if you are in a labor camp.
Unless you think reptilians or the illuminati or whatever it is are behind this.
I never said anything about labor camps. Money is a means to an end to these people, not a goal. Power is the goal. We are talking about same people that run currencies, they already have as much money as they could possibly want.
On November 19 2010 01:30 Treemonkeys wrote: I'm suggesting we are already WELL down that road and the body scanners are just a stop along the way.
What does pro-anarchy have to do with this? That is a red herring.
Just getting a feel for who I'm talking with.
On November 19 2010 00:26 Msrobinson wrote: It is more likely that you get struck by lightning and die, than to get killed by terrorists, so why arent we walking around with lightning rods?
Pretty sure if we did that, we would definitely be more likely to be struck by lightning.
At least I'm hearing more than complaints about prying eyes now. I still think that, at the end of the day, (even if it is another step in the march to mankind's enslavement) the body scanner is not an issue enough to worry about specifically on the basis that it contributes to the eventual end of freedom.
On November 19 2010 00:26 Msrobinson wrote: It is more likely that you get struck by lightning and die, than to get killed by terrorists, so why arent we walking around with lightning rods?
Pretty sure if we did that, we would definitely be more likely to be struck by lightning.
At least I'm hearing more than complaints about prying eyes now. I still think that, at the end of the day, (even if it is another step in the march to mankind's enslavement) the body scanner is not an issue enough to worry about specifically on the basis that it contributes to the eventual end of freedom.
The government on the other hand...
I agree. I wouldn't even consider it a problem if we had reasonable and peaceful government, we just don't
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?
Yeah there are several sources all over the place. If you want a one stop shop check out pilots for 9/11 truth or architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. Alex Jones is a horrible source so don't bother with anything from him.
Also look into building 7 or just check out the videos of it collapsing and try to tell yourself it wasn't a demolition.
Another good one is the mossad agents documenting the twin tower collapses and then being deported to Israel without a real investigation as to what they were doing and how they knew it was going to happen. They were working for a mossad front company called urban moving systems that fled to Israel when the FBI attempted to investigate them. They also had another moving van that was pulled over and arrested in addition to the ones caught documenting 9/11 and the van was found to have explosive residue, they were also deported to Israel.
There is really so much evidence it's hard to even begin, books have been written about this.
Oh ma lawd.
"It looks like a demolition, it must be a demolition! And I've seen plenty of building collapses caused by plane debris flying into buildings, so I must be right! It looks like a controlled demolition, god damn it!"
Now, why would whoever orchestrated this inside job need to destroy a little 47 story building in addition to one of the biggest landmarks in New York? They wouldn't. If they wanted to create a scene and uproar then they already have by flying two commercial airliners into massive skyscrapers. Why would they demolish a completely separate building? Can you not see that the most rational and logical explanation is that some plane debris fell down and caused it to collapse? Yes or no? Please answer.
I am perfectly willing to accept that the government orchestrated 9/11 if you show me proof, I fully believe that they are capable and willing to do something like that, but please stop with the building 7 nonsense.
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?
Yeah there are several sources all over the place. If you want a one stop shop check out pilots for 9/11 truth or architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. Alex Jones is a horrible source so don't bother with anything from him.
Also look into building 7 or just check out the videos of it collapsing and try to tell yourself it wasn't a demolition.
Another good one is the mossad agents documenting the twin tower collapses and then being deported to Israel without a real investigation as to what they were doing and how they knew it was going to happen. They were working for a mossad front company called urban moving systems that fled to Israel when the FBI attempted to investigate them. They also had another moving van that was pulled over and arrested in addition to the ones caught documenting 9/11 and the van was found to have explosive residue, they were also deported to Israel.
There is really so much evidence it's hard to even begin, books have been written about this.
It must be true, we have BOOKS!!!
Join the revolution, There's dozens of us, literally dozens!
So some people would believe in sending troops to their deaths in iraq/afghanistan to fight terrorism but don't believe that terrorists are a large enough threat to justify these scanners. Oh man.. something is definitely wrong here. I understand that these precautions might be an overkill, but hey.. if it works and guarantees no bombs get on board a plane then seriously, why not? Sure the chances are that YOU won't be the one who would die in a plane hijacking but that doesn't mean it's ok if another person dies instead. So get over it, nobody wants to see you naked anyway unless they are paid to do so.
On November 19 2010 00:26 Msrobinson wrote: It is more likely that you get struck by lightning and die, than to get killed by terrorists, so why arent we walking around with lightning rods?
Pretty sure if we did that, we would definitely be more likely to be struck by lightning.
At least I'm hearing more than complaints about prying eyes now. I still think that, at the end of the day, (even if it is another step in the march to mankind's enslavement) the body scanner is not an issue enough to worry about specifically on the basis that it contributes to the eventual end of freedom.
The government on the other hand...
I think the problem in many western democracies is that there is a tendency to increase control by means of observation, storing telecommunication data, dragnet investigation, undercover-agents inciting peple to publish terror-threats on youtube (so happened in germany this week), PATRIOT act, jailing people without warrants, etc.
The isse is that our freedom is taken away in tiny bits, so every new measure does not feel like much of a loss. The best metaphor is cooking a frog. If you increase the water temperature slowly enough, you can boil the frog and he wont notice until its too late.
Also, the people have to draw the line somewhere. When you do not have a problem with body scanners how can you justifiy being against the government reading your browser history every day or wiretapping your phone? And its not like this is all paranoia. In Germany, the government wanted ot istalle a computer virus on all Computers in Germany (the so called Bundes-Trojaner) and they wanted to make a law that all personal communication data must be stored for 6 months regardless of a probabale cause. The latter law was, thankfully, stopped by the german equivalent to the supreme court.
On November 19 2010 01:58 dinmsab wrote: So some people would believe in sending troops to their deaths in iraq/afghanistan to fight terrorism but don't believe that terrorists are a large enough threat to justify these scanners. Oh man.. something is definitely wrong here. I understand that these precautions might be an overkill, but hey.. if it works and guarantees no bombs get on board a plane then seriously, why not? Sure the chances are that YOU won't be the one who would die in a plane hijacking but that doesn't mean it's ok if another person dies instead. So get over it, nobody wants to see you naked anyway unless they are paid to do so.
You would have made a good Soviet Commissar.
The dear leaders only grudgingly humiliate and control you XD
On November 19 2010 01:58 dinmsab wrote: So some people would believe in sending troops to their deaths in iraq/afghanistan to fight terrorism but don't believe that terrorists are a large enough threat to justify these scanners. Oh man.. something is definitely wrong here. I understand that these precautions might be an overkill, but hey.. if it works and guarantees no bombs get on board a plane then seriously, why not? Sure the chances are that YOU won't be the one who would die in a plane hijacking but that doesn't mean it's ok if another person dies instead. So get over it, nobody wants to see you naked anyway unless they are paid to do so.
You would have made a good Soviet Commissar.
The dear leaders only grudgingly humiliate and control you XD
I would object if they wanted to take a look at my telephone bills, or browsing history.. but seeing a distorted image of what doesn't look like me naked? Nah, considering the good reasons behind it i don't seem to mind at all. Is it humiliating? Maybe for some ugly people.. control over you? That's a bit far-fetched.
On November 19 2010 02:08 revy wrote: A society willing to trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
true story, however. I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't even get a look in when it comes to this kind of stint being that the world is in such huge danger from terrorism, the problems go further back.
I dont see the issue, If it even increases the chance by 1% (which I expect probably more)that they will stop someone from hijacking or blowing up my plane. I dont have a problem with this. Its not like you can tell who those people are in the pictures, and on top of that, its not like its all that revealing in the first place.
I dont know, maybe its just me, but I believe the same for racial profiling, if there is even the slightest chance that you could blow up a plane because of someone else doing the same thing from your country of origin, I dont have a problem with the government inconviencing you. (or me for that matter). In egypt I was taken aside for "random extra screening" when I was the only white christian in the lineup. I didnt take offence to this because I knew they were just doing there job and I know it happens on the other side of things as well. I feel like people should stop being so self righteous about these things. Its for Everyones security, and in the end, it really has no effect on your day to day life.
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.
On top of that, as a frequent flyer and someone with inside knowledge of airport security procedures (family member works for TSA), I can tell you a few things.
1) There are still dozens of ways to blow up a plane. Between plastic eplosives, liquid explosives, etc, it is impossible to make a plane 100% safe.
2) It is almost impossible to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon anymore. Federal Air Marshalls are on around half of all domestic flights, the FFDO program has a -lot- of armed pilots out there, and the cockpit doors basically take explosives to get through.
Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
On November 19 2010 01:20 Electric.Jesus wrote: 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).
This is the most reasonable argument against these scanners I've read in the thread.
Honestly, I don't consider it a violation of privacy when a black-and-white outline of my naked body is seen for a few seconds by someone that I'll never see again and doesn't even know my name. It's just... really not a big deal at all. The fact that people are being all melodramatic about it "giving up freedoms" is just silly...
Whether it's actually worth the trouble, I don't know. But the privacy bit certainly doesn't bother me at all.
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?
Yeah there are several sources all over the place. If you want a one stop shop check out pilots for 9/11 truth or architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. Alex Jones is a horrible source so don't bother with anything from him.
Also look into building 7 or just check out the videos of it collapsing and try to tell yourself it wasn't a demolition.
Another good one is the mossad agents documenting the twin tower collapses and then being deported to Israel without a real investigation as to what they were doing and how they knew it was going to happen. They were working for a mossad front company called urban moving systems that fled to Israel when the FBI attempted to investigate them. They also had another moving van that was pulled over and arrested in addition to the ones caught documenting 9/11 and the van was found to have explosive residue, they were also deported to Israel.
There is really so much evidence it's hard to even begin, books have been written about this.
Oh ma lawd.
"It looks like a demolition, it must be a demolition! And I've seen plenty of building collapses caused by plane debris flying into buildings, so I must be right! It looks like a controlled demolition, god damn it!"
Now, why would whoever orchestrated this inside job need to destroy a little 47 story building in addition to one of the biggest landmarks in New York? They wouldn't. If they wanted to create a scene and uproar then they already have by flying two commercial airliners into massive skyscrapers. Why would they demolish a completely separate building? Can you not see that the most rational and logical explanation is that some plane debris fell down and caused it to collapse? Yes or no? Please answer.
I am perfectly willing to accept that the government orchestrated 9/11 if you show me proof, I fully believe that they are capable and willing to do something like that, but please stop with the building 7 nonsense.
The debris was limited to one side of the building and the damage did not look like enough to make it fall. Had it been enough to cause a collapse, it would have collapsed unevenly towards the side that was weakened, not straight down like it did. It also would not have stood completely stable for hours then collapse suddenly within seconds later on in the afternoon like it did.
You also have the Barry Jennings interview which suggests foul play and demolition. You also have dozens of emergency workers reporting explosions in the basement of the building. You also have mossad arrested driving a van with explosive residue.
It is easy to just look at one piece and say something stupid like "you think it's a demolition just cause it looks exactly like one complete with near free fall collapse and the top of the building buckling in the middle as it falls into it's own footprint LOL" but you need to look at everything together.
This is not enough proof for you, yet I can promise that I have far more evidence than you can show me that this was done by terrorists and box cutters.
Why did they take out building 7? I can only theorize, so I hope you fully understand what that word means.
For starters, here are a couple of interesting tenets in building 7:
U.S. Secret Service C.I.A.
Perhaps they were getting rid of evidence? Perhaps the plane that crashed in philly was supposed to hit building 7 to make it more believable. Who knows, but it makes a lot more sense than two airplanes causing 3 skyscrapers to collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint. Oh and a 47 story building is not little unless you live in Dubai.
Oh then there is the whole issue of the pilots for 9/11 truth group requesting the FDR data from the plane that hit the Pentagon under the FOIA and the data they received actually completely contradicted the story presented in the commission report.
Like I said you have to look at everything instead of just cherry picking one issue so you can find something or someone to laugh at.
edit- I forgot to mention the funniest thing that is really suspicious, BBC reported building 7 fell 17 minutes before it actually fell! You can even see it in the background as they report, standing perfectly stable.
On November 19 2010 01:20 Electric.Jesus wrote: 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).
This is the most reasonable argument against these scanners I've read in the thread.
Honestly, I don't consider it a violation of privacy when a black-and-white outline of my naked body is seen for a few seconds by someone that I'll never see again and doesn't even know my name. It's just... really not a big deal at all. The fact that people are being all melodramatic about it "giving up freedoms" is just silly...
Whether it's actually worth the trouble, I don't know. But the privacy bit certainly doesn't bother me at all.
Lets not look at the big picture and see how this only adds to a long list of freedoms that have been taken away since 9/11.
On November 19 2010 00:26 Msrobinson wrote: It is more likely that you get struck by lightning and die, than to get killed by terrorists, so why arent we walking around with lightning rods?
Pretty sure if we did that, we would definitely be more likely to be struck by lightning.
At least I'm hearing more than complaints about prying eyes now. I still think that, at the end of the day, (even if it is another step in the march to mankind's enslavement) the body scanner is not an issue enough to worry about specifically on the basis that it contributes to the eventual end of freedom.
The government on the other hand...
Actually "lightning rod" means that it is connected by a wire to the ground where it directs all the electricity in case of a strike. So only the rod would get struck.
Anyways, as i said i'm just against it because it costs a ton, does nothing to improve safety, and is just another inconvinience that we dont need.
The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).
Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.
The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search, ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.
• A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging. • B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesisprovoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk. • C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk. • D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose. • E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated. • F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined. • G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis. • H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?
Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
So the benefits of this device are: 1: Chances are smaller that your plane blows up into pieces(wich was already low)
And the cons are: 1: Expensive device. WE pay indirectly for these (250k?) devices. So if the device is not very beneficial the money could be better spend elsewhere. 2: Cancer 3: Privacy issues(Yes, not everybody likes to be watched nude by total strangers)
So i can conclude we are paying for an expensive device wich lowers the chance our plane will be blown to pieces but we trade that off with a chance of getting cancer what can be just as lethal. Then there is also the privacy issue and inconveniance for lots of people. Sounds like a bad deal to me
good thing plastic and other synthetics still make awesome undetectable knifes. They won't see it in your carry on and you can knife a bitch as soon as you sit down.
On November 19 2010 02:29 Treemonkeys wrote: Perhaps they were getting rid of evidence? Perhaps the plane that crashed in philly was supposed to hit building 7 to make it more believable. Who knows, but it makes a lot more sense than two airplanes causing 3 skyscrapers to collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint. Oh and a 47 story building is not little unless you live in Dubai.
I dont have the time to fully debunk your conspiracry theories at the moment, but I'll deal with this section anyway.
The first point there is rather quick to dispatch of, do you really think blowing up a building on live tv with thousands of people around, and being so incompetent at it that random people on the internet can figure it out, was the best method the US goverment had to delete data/destroy evidence? I mean apparently they managed to hide a hell of a lot of explosives on every single floor of 3 buildings without anyone noticing, and then fly planes in to them to cover it, hoping that the buildings burning didn't detonate or damage anything, and this was better than getting rid of 'evidence' in some simpler way?
The 2nd point you make is just misleading, no one has ever claimed that aeroplanes being slammed in to a building is enough to collapse it, but I imagine you already know that.
The free fall arguement is easily dismissed by simply watching any footage, the building falls slower than debris falling beside it, and that in itself should be sufficient to demonstrate it's not free fall speeds. I'm not going to pretend to be good enough at maths to prove it mathematically, but there are plenty of people who are and it doesn't take long to find one. Even numbers provided by the supporters of the conspiracy for a free fall drop rate rarely match the actual footage.
As to the own footprint arguement, there are two things to address. First, the fatal structural issues began at the top and so collapsing down isn't going to be the same as an earthquake or something knocking it down from the bottom for a start. Also it's fairly obvious the debris didn't end up in a nice little pile at the bottom purely from aerial photography at the time, but I dont presume you meant it that literally.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue.
On November 19 2010 02:29 Treemonkeys wrote: Perhaps they were getting rid of evidence? Perhaps the plane that crashed in philly was supposed to hit building 7 to make it more believable. Who knows, but it makes a lot more sense than two airplanes causing 3 skyscrapers to collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint. Oh and a 47 story building is not little unless you live in Dubai.
I dont have the time to fully debunk your conspiracry theories at the moment, but I'll deal with this section anyway.
The first point there is rather quick to dispatch of, do you really think blowing up a building on live tv with thousands of people around, and being so incompetent at it that random people on the internet can figure it out, was the best method the US goverment had to delete data/destroy evidence? I mean apparently they managed to hide a hell of a lot of explosives on every single floor of 3 buildings without anyone noticing, and then fly planes in to them to cover it, hoping that the buildings burning didn't detonate or damage anything, and this was better than getting rid of 'evidence' in some simpler way?
The 2nd point you make is just misleading, no one has ever claimed that aeroplanes being slammed in to a building is enough to collapse it, but I imagine you already know that.
The free fall arguement is easily dismissed by simply watching any footage, the building falls slower than debris falling beside it, and that in itself should be sufficient to demonstrate it's not free fall speeds. I'm not going to pretend to be good enough at maths to prove it mathematically, but there are plenty of people who are and it doesn't take long to find one. Even numbers provided by the supporters of the conspiracy for a free fall drop rate rarely match the actual footage.
As to the own footprint arguement, there are two things to address. First, the fatal structural issues began at the top and so collapsing down isn't going to be the same as an earthquake or something knocking it down from the bottom for a start. Also it's fairly obvious the debris didn't end up in a nice little pile at the bottom purely from aerial photography at the time, but I dont presume you meant it that literally.
So you you had only had time to cherry pick the points that I went out of my way to say I was theorizing and you ignored all the facts I pointed out. The main purpose was obviously the Iraq war. If one was planning this op, it might make sense to do all the planning in one of the targeting buildings to kill two birds in one stone.
Arguing against theorized motives is weak, so please stop, and deal with the facts.
We have PhD level physicists saying the buildings fell at near free fall speed. This requires no almost resistance which is not possible in a collapse.
Much of the debris is being forcefully ejected from the building is is going faster than free fall speed - on the twin towers.
There is no visible debris during the building 7 collapse, only smoke. This leads me to believe you haven't even seen the footage, or haven't seen it recently.
Building 7 was not hit by a plane and it is the most obvious in being a demolition, you are lumping all three buildings together when they are very different.
Everything you said about fatal structural damage at the top does not apply to building 7.
You admit you are not good enough at math, I am, but don't take my word for it.
You are saying the structural issues with building 7 began at the top? That is not true, go look at pictures of the building. It was at the bottom. The collapse began at the top, starting with the penthouse caving in to the inside of the building.
TSA can't find weapons, they can't identify terrorists, and now they want to pretend that hitting us with unreliable x-ray machines and grabbing our genitals will help them do their jobs? lolwut. No thanks, I'll drive.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue.
Same can be done at any public gathering. Get ready have body scanners every-fucking-where. Hell, don't even go outside, it's too risky.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue.
Same can be done at any public gathering. Get ready have body scanners every-fucking-where. Hell, don't even go outside, it's too risky.
Last I checked, airplanes aren't public gatherings, the insides of airports aren't public places, and explosives are way more effective in confined spaces sitting on top giant wings full of jet fuel. Don't make comparisons without trying to justify them, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot when you make ones that don't make any sense.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue.
Same can be done at any public gathering. Get ready have body scanners every-fucking-where. Hell, don't even go outside, it's too risky.
Last I checked, airplanes aren't public gatherings, the insides of airports aren't public places, and explosives are way more effective in confined spaces sitting on top giant wings full of jet fuel. Don't make comparisons without trying to justify them, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot when you make ones that don't make any sense.
Uh, it makes perfect sense. They are effective in confined spaces, like you said. This would apply to concerts, grocery stores, movies, etc. just as easy as airplanes.
Public gathering = lots of people in a small area.
Spend more than two seconds thinking about what someone said before you reply, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot.
I'm gonna post, in spoiler, a convo on AIM about the subject between me and a friend. I will omit my part of it because I'm a retard and brought nothing but shitty jokes to the convo :p
Friend 3:40 am Oh god People are seriouslygetting pissed about the TSA please continue, America. Me 3:41 am TSA? Please explain. I'm canuck Friend 3:42 am TSA are using full-body scanners if you dont go for the nudey scan you get felt up by a high school dropout Me 3:42 am Oh Friend 3:42 am You can't opt out, if you do you're liable to be fined 11k Friend 3:43 am I hate the TSA, so it's about fucking time. Friend 3:43 am Its not anything new Just now everyone has to either do the nudey-scan or the pat-down Thus, americans mad. Friend 3:46 am >mfw I've put up with this sort of shit going from the US to the UK and coming back in for some time now, and now people are bitching Friend 3:47 am if you say no to the scanner you get the pat-down Friend 3:47 am which is more like a feel-up than a pat down. Friend 3:51 am >mfw Canadians have no sense of offence to having their rights eroded Me 3:52 am It's simply an attitude of "Seriously, why the fuck in heaven and hell would I care about it. Whoopty doo, they see me naked." Tbh, the screener would probably be more accepted than mandatory pat down Friend 3:53 am Its a precedent m8. It does nothing to further security, and gives the Government more reason to do insane shit in the name of stopping ragheads from touching planes. tbh I can't wait for the new check after a terrorist puts a bomb in his butt. Friend 3:54 am >implying that closing the security hole after it's exploited does jackshit Me 3:55 am fuck, he could clench dem cheeks tight so that he can have a little rope out, just like a tampon, so pulling the bag out is easier than "whoops, it went in the shitter." Friend 3:56 am Al Qaeda isn't stupid. They're not going to do the same shit twice after you get wise to it. Its like putting water through a soup strainer. You're not stopping much, you're just obsfucating it/making it appear things are more secure. Me 3:57 am That's true. Friend 3:58 am You cant put a net out and expect to catch fish if the fish are able to find a way through the holes. You're just going to strangle dolphins. Friend 4:02 am Counterterrorism cannot succeed at the airport. Should there be security? Yes, obviously. But you cannot expect to ever stop sophisitcated groups such as Al Qaeda with a bunch of high school dropouts with multibillion dollar screeners and a license to grab at your jimmies. tl;dr: it's the DHS justifying it's existence/expenditure on all of those fucking scanners. Me 4:03 am Someone must be making lodsehmoneh on this. Friend 4:03 am PRETTY MUCH tl;dr: Fuck it, America. Even Australia is less Authoritarian than you. Friend 4:06 am You're also now aware that the TSA's power inadvertently lets the DHS control most travel for the majority of Americans, due to a lack of a sophisitcated train system. Friend 4:08 am There is no viable mode of fast transport in the US aside from Air Travel. You can fly for three hours, or you can drive for a week, or take a mess and clusterfuck of AMTRAK trains for a few days. Friend 4:10 am Thus, the TSA being more invasive on airplane checks means that the lion's share of in-country and international travel can be very closely monitored/controlled. Me 4:11 am lion? Friend 4:11 am Lion's Share = a large, generally unequal share. Me 4:11 am Oh Friend 4:11 am In short, it makes (inter)national transport of people and most freight easy to control and monitor without oversight or question. Friend 4:13 am tl;dr: Don't go to America. Friend 4:17 am Also, if you wanted to find bombs bombsniffer dogs > TSA fucks Dogs are cheaper and more cuddly too. Friend 4:18 am >mfw full-body scanners wouldn't have stopped the Underwear Bomber they were introduced in response too. Friend 4:21 am tip: Pilot's door are now reinforced Friend 4:21 am And locked for the entire flight. Not even the flight attendants can open. Friend 4:22 am tl;dr Random Air Marshalls, the reinforced doors, bombsniffer dogs and metal detectors. I've now solved airplanes.
All the people talking about if it increases by 1%! The security is worth it.
I'm of the mind that if they really want to blow up a plane they will. I don't appreciate the total invasion of privacy. Regardless that they don't see me its just another security measure in an already ridiculous system where I have to be at the airport three hours in advance just to make my flight.
The whole liquid explosive thing would be too bookstore to transport on a plane worth enough of it to blow a plane up but whatever.
Looks like my flight to germany will be even more irritating.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue.
Same can be done at any public gathering. Get ready have body scanners every-fucking-where. Hell, don't even go outside, it's too risky.
Last I checked, airplanes aren't public gatherings, the insides of airports aren't public places, and explosives are way more effective in confined spaces sitting on top giant wings full of jet fuel. Don't make comparisons without trying to justify them, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot when you make ones that don't make any sense.
Uh, it makes perfect sense. They are effective in confined spaces, like you said. This would apply to concerts, grocery stores, movies, etc. just as easy as airplanes.
Public gathering = lots of people in a small area.
Spend more than two seconds thinking about what someone said before you reply, that will let you avoid sounding like an idiot.
I could tell you to do the same. You're blatantly denying the fact that airplanes are way more dangerous than any of the situations you've described. Another fact is that there's never been a tragedy of the same magnitude in a movie theatre or an indoor concert. While that doesn't mean that there never will be, you need to consider that several factors affect the size of an explosion, namely the size of the bomb, the size of the area, whether or not the area is pressure sealed and whether or not there's anything else there to catch fire. In all categories, airplanes are the absolute worst, especially when there's a danger of having one drop out of the air in to a city. Even in the size category, it's not exactly the easiest thing in the world to take a bag in to a theatre, and you need way more to blow up an open area with ventilation and fire exits. Furthermore, the danger isn't just to the people on board or close to the event. It's the fact that it's an airplane, which is much better at instilling "terror" which is what suicide bombers are looking to do anyways.
Again, spend more than a few seconds thinking of the fact that someone offended you on the internet and think about the things you're saying. When every single factor that didn't appear in your own arguments says the opposite of what you're saying, it's pretty easy to see that you haven't really considered your position.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
On November 19 2010 02:48 Jenbu wrote: Sorry for the long post but this raises many concerns about this technology. If I was traveling this holiday season i would opt out of the scan, but then I would be sexually assaulted.
This is all just government intrusion on my freedoms.
Sexual assault is defined as being involuntary. If you opt to have someone perform that particular check, you have absolutely no right to mention sexual assault at all. This is just blatant fearmongering at the expense of any rational take on the issue.
Applying your logic, I recommend that NO ONE is allowed to bring ANYTHING on board. Problem solved. Heat the plane to 22°C, make everyone strip naked, seatch all body openings and if they are clean, on board they go. Clothes and Luggage will be sent separately, just for security. Problem solved. /sarcsam
On a serious note, what is the "real threat" you are referring to? Terrorism? The threat may be real but the perceived risk is FAR higher than the actual threat would rationally justify. I mean, as some people correctly pointed out, people seem to endure a lot of crap and tolerate massive (tax-payed) security inestments to reduce a ridiculously small chance of being killed by an even smaller margin. At the same time, these people eat unhealthy food, probabaly drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, maybe don't take the "don't drink and drive" too serious etc.
Its stupid to a degree that is not longer comprehensible from a purely rational standpoint and this is what annoys me so about it.
It's not like the guards are having like a porn show infront of them. For every 'hot' person they see they probably have like 20 that they wished the could unsee. Peeping at grannies/grandpas is not something very appealing.
Oh ya, are children exempt from this kinda test? Cuz if not... then that's pretty damn distrubing.
Applying your logic, I recommend that NO ONE is allowed to bring ANYTHING on board. Problem solved. Heat the plane to 22°C, make everyone strip naked, seatch all body openings and if they are clean, on board they go. Clothes and Luggage will be sent separately, just for security. Problem solved. /sarcsam
On a serious note, what is the "real threat" you are referring to? Terrorism? The threat may be real but the perceived risk is FAR higher than the actual threat would rationally justify. I mean, as some people correctly pointed out, people seem to endure a lot of crap and tolerate massive (tax-payed) security inestments to reduce a ridiculously small chance of being killed by an even smaller margin. At the same time, these people eat unhealthy food, probabaly drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, maybe don't take the "don't drink and drive" too serious etc.
Its stupid to a degree that is not longer comprehensible from a purely rational standpoint and this is what annoys me so about it.
The point of these machines is to offset the discomfort of searches, which in turn are to offset the chance of any danger or hijackings. Security measures are not mainly to stop threats at the gate but to stop them before they become an option, as in they are not conceived because would be attackers are thinking of how to get past security. You saying that the risk of being killed on an airplane is a ridiculously small chance is invalidated by the fact that these machines and other security measures are the reason for that small chance. In summation, I am all for anything that gets me onto a plane and to my destination quicker, with less hassle of people asking me to remove clothing or be groped.
-> They don't work properly: Either they are so sensitive that almost everyone has to be searched manually anyways, or they are too insensitive to detect weapons. -> They might be a danger to health - not for most individuals, but statistically, especially for people flying a lot. Even if the health risk is low but existing, it would probably cause more damage than not using them at all! -> It's an akward insight into private intimacy
I wonder: Where are the times gone where people and nations had the mindset that it is a valid option to die for defending their freedom?
A text of Volker Pispers about the topic: "The question is - what are you afraid of? That's the deciding question in terms of terrorism to me. It's not about playing down crimes! Sure, these people are murderers - ordinary, bad murderers! But not more! Don't glorify them to "terrorists"! Terror it is, because we are afraid of it. The terror is here in our heads. They're murderers, like there are many murderers in this world. What are you afraid of, that's the deciding question! Of Al Quaida? 150,000 Germans die from smoking every year. 5000 Germans die from the consequences of boozing. 6000 Germans die in road traffic. What are you afraid of? 6000 Germans die from flu, every year, totally ordinary flu, not SARS or bird flu or something dangerous like that, totally ordinary flu. And 15.000 deaths we have from doctors' mistakes. German doctors bring down 15,000 patients every year. That's 44 deads a day. Quite a lot, don't you think? An old Al-Quaida fighter had to work quite some time for that, the Marburg Union (German medical doctors' union) does that during lunch break on good days!"
Just think of all the people dying in traffic every year in many countries. The "toll for mobility", that is. Instead, many countries changed the laws: Some years ago, it was a law in Germany that trucks always had to be driven by two drivers over large distances, to avoid crashes caused by tired truck drivers. This law was nullified, probably because it appeared like a great way of increasing economic growth to the gouvernment as it makes transportation cheaper... As a result, from time to time a totally overworked truck driver crashes into an end of a traffic jam killing some people. This is killing much more Germans than Al Quaida ever did, and probably it's the same for the USA (apart from the dead soldiers in Iraq which was pretty much the US governments guilt as they sent them into such a hostile environment where lots of fighters and terrorists are attacking them, people who would never come to the USA though but now think of defending their home countries).
The thing about suicide bombers is if you stop fucking people off constantly with your foreign policy, they will run out eventually.
If you dropped a 10th of the amount of dollars on Afghanistan or Iraq that you dropped in terms of the value of bombs, I guarantee you neither country would want to blow you up. Hell, they would be too busy buying your products.
And the rate the fed is printing money, you shouldn't run out of ammunition too quickly.
Now, consider this:
How many terrorists would it take to seize a major water processing plant (or less dramatically, just drill into a water main) in New York City? Pump in a few gallons of dioxin and bingo. 10,000 dead.
Going to put someone on guard every 50m of the public waterworks in the US? Didn't think so. Risk management is all about guarding against the greatest risk at a reasonable cost. The TSA is a response not just to terror, but at American pride at getting seriously butthurt by a load of guys with wraparound hats. It's not a rational response. Reinforced cockpit doors were a rational response.
Still, maybe the US government might stop funding terrorist organisations in everyone else's damn countries. Hah.
That is messed up. Super violation of Privacy. And really wrong.
Its like saying hey its ok for you to give some random guy a naked picture of me because i don't know him.
Personally for me i don't mind for myself because im comfortable with how i look , but their are many people and religions that will take offense to someone seeing their wives daughters or girlfriends naked. Let alone their Children.
How do we know their isn't some kind of sick sexual pervert behind the camera?
On November 19 2010 05:19 NSGrendel wrote: The thing about suicide bombers is if you stop fucking people off constantly with your foreign policy, they will run out eventually.
Still, maybe the US government might stop funding terrorist organisations in everyone else's damn countries. Hah.
On November 19 2010 04:24 viletomato wrote: It's not like the guards are having like a porn show infront of them. For every 'hot' person they see they probably have like 20 that they wished the could unsee. Peeping at grannies/grandpas is not something very appealing.
Oh ya, are children exempt from this kinda test? Cuz if not... then that's pretty damn distrubing.
So they will be mocking some people instead of getting turned on, so reassuring.
On November 19 2010 02:26 Phoenix111 wrote: Consider this, we are safe as we are ever going to be on airplanes. Unless we start doing an MRI on every passenger to make sure no one swallowed some liquid explosives in a condom, we can never GUARANTEE safety. Therefore, all these body scanners are doing is stripping away one more layer of privacy of the American people. If you don't think that governments running unchecked will turn into police states, look at 'democratic' Russia. If we as Americans don't stand up for our rights, the government will take them, one by one, until we're living in the Gaza Strip.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
This has EVERYTHING to do with rights and freedoms. What we're essentially seeing here is a virual strip search that is being mandated by the government. Having someone see me naked is not a minor inconvencience, it's a huge violation of my privacy. I don't choose to fly, I have to for work, and if I refuse, I'll lose my job, my house, and my livelihood. So I'm left with a choice of a virtual strip search or some stranger grabbing my balls through my clothes? How can you not see a problem with this? The government is using your fear of terrorists to chip away at your rights. If this practice is allowed to continue, it's only a matter of time before we're using these machines everywhere. Churches, grocery stores, stadiums, aparments are all going to require virtual strip searches to get into.
On November 19 2010 05:49 kaisen wrote: As long as it's gonna reduce the chance of the plane from crashing into buildings? Then I have absolutely no problem with it.
You could ban all airplanes, that would reduce the chance to pretty much zero.
On November 19 2010 05:49 kaisen wrote: As long as it's gonna reduce the chance of the plane from crashing into buildings? Then I have absolutely no problem with it.
No one has to crash any planes anywhere anymore. I believe they have accomplished what they set out to do. They made the lives of a whole bunch of Americans that much more unpleasant. If this trend continues how long will it be before people are giving up their neighbours because they spoke out against the government? How many terror attacks using the US airways have succeeded in the US since 9/11? I don't remember any actually. All I remember is a bunch that were foiled.
On November 19 2010 05:04 teekesselchen wrote: A text of Volker Pispers about the topic: "The question is - what are you afraid of? That's the deciding question in terms of terrorism to me. It's not about playing down crimes! Sure, these people are murderers - ordinary, bad murderers! But not more! Don't glorify them to "terrorists"! Terror it is, because we are afraid of it. The terror is here in our heads. They're murderers, like there are many murderers in this world. What are you afraid of, that's the deciding question! Of Al Quaida? 150,000 Germans die from smoking every year. 5000 Germans die from the consequences of boozing. 6000 Germans die in road traffic. What are you afraid of? 6000 Germans die from flu, every year, totally ordinary flu, not SARS or bird flu or something dangerous like that, totally ordinary flu. And 15.000 deaths we have from doctors' mistakes. German doctors bring down 15,000 patients every year. That's 44 deads a day. Quite a lot, don't you think? An old Al-Quaida fighter had to work quite some time for that, the Marburg Union (German medical doctors' union) does that during lunch break on good days!"
terrorist threat, i do think its being blown out of proportion. if they can't do it with planes, they'll use something else. al qaeda is probably laughing their ass off for causing "chaos" within USA, as they said they would.
On November 19 2010 05:49 kaisen wrote: As long as it's gonna reduce the chance of the plane from crashing into buildings? Then I have absolutely no problem with it.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but it's this sort of reasoning that allows governments to blatantly invade our privacy and rights. It disgusting the things they get away with nowadays, between this, the patriot act, and many other things claiming to "heighten security and reduce the risk of terrorism."
Honestly, at first I was happy about the increasing of security. Before 9-11, even as an eleven-year-old and younger, I flew frequently and could tell that airport security was a joke. Sure it sucks to have to go through slower lines, metal detectors and sometimes get scanned, but shit like this is going way to far. People can easily obtain these photos and abuse the hell out of them, and I can totally see nerds getting these pictures and enhancing them or modifying them via programs like photoshop, and spreading them around the internet. How would you like it if you were interviewing for a potential job, and your potential employer got a hold of a picture like this modified with photoshop, but thought it was real and judged you for it. What if you are a person in politics or some other well-known public position, and people abused these to try and ruin your reputation.
I know it's far-fetched, and most likely won't happen to me, and it's even worse that people would judge another person like that for having nude pictures out there, but the fact is that it happens, and it's very real.
Finally, we're paying for this technology, not the airlines or TSA. Whether it's via taxes or increased airfare, there is a price and we as the fliers are going to be expected to pay for it, which sucks big time. I enjoy flying, I don't enjoy paying obscene amounts of money to be crammed into a hot-tube filled with other people, many of which have questionable hygiene, like a sardine or a pig going to be slaughtered. Unfortunately, the way air travel is currently set up in our society, I pretty much don't have a choice unless I pay triple for first class, which is not a big improvement, or pay $30,000 to fly private, or if I use another means of transportation, which will be much slower and less practical.
IMO, terrorism is like hacking. I can pay literally millions of dollars to be protected up to my eyeballs, but if a skilled enough hacker wants in, he will get in regardless of if I have free Norton anti-spyware, or the best protection money can buy. The question I have to ask myself is; "Is what I am trying to protect worth it, given the knowledge that it can be taken no matter what I do?"
Not particularly offended by the idea of a professional seeing me naked (had a physical in the last dozen years?), but it is pretty big waste of money on what is essentially a formality. I think the main reason they do this is because some people are scared to take planes without all of this nonsense, so it is profitable to invest in it.
There are so many things we put up with which are much more invasive for the sake of our health (colonoscopy: look forward to it), that to call this a breach of our dignity is a little childish.
It's kind of funny what we consider private and what we don't. We all want to draw the line somewhere, so as to leave something special for a lover, but if you think that seeing a body is that line, I wonder what you think of beaches where everyone dresses in what is essentially underwear. More often than not, I think people are revealing more critical things about their personality to strangers of social-networking sites than can be found in a scan of the body.
This might be the lightest infringement on human rights imaginable. It's probably stupid and unnecessary, but it's so drastically less significant than every single other social problem and legal abuse that no one should give a fuck.
Government can jail you for years for putting plants in your mouth. Learn some damn priorities.
On November 19 2010 06:25 SKTDH wrote: lol the pictures look unrealistic anyways so no problem
Yeah and as we speak theres probably some guys developing a better version of the scanner. Probably some day there'll be a request for scanners with a better quality so you could see objects more clearly. One day you'll end up with "x-ray goggles" from the movies.
I just went on a trip a week ago and I always find getting through security annoying. No, I don't really want to be scanned or have my carry-on luggage scanned but it's just something you have to go through.
I rather that they do this and try to prevent something from happening. Because if something did happen and they didn't have these security measures, then people will complain about how the TSA doesn't do its job. People will complain about everything...
if these "pictures" were secure then why are so many people already out there on the web with these "secure" pictures? well if you want to have near naked pics taken of you and possibly released to public view you can use these new machines or just have some guy named bob pat ya down and be done with it... and if your selected to use the machine refuse it... there is no law that states you have to cooperate with that test.. you can always opt for a different method although this may lead to abusive behavior from the Airport security and possibly cost you thousands of dollars in court fees but its the point... I am an American and i shouldn't have to use the security machine that rapes my rights as an American citizen, I like my cloths thank you and no one but my wife needs to see my "business" when a simple full body pat down can do the same thing this machine does.
By keeping the American public fearful like this, the terrorists win without launching another attack. It is also the reason I won't fly out of the US again. It is an unacceptable level of intrusion just to take an airplane.
Compare: how many people die on airplanes due to terrorists smuggling things on board
...with just about anything else, death due to bee-stings, car accidents, unnecessary foreign wars, etc.
This is stupid and we are giving up liberty for a VERY little security. What are they gonna find that 1. won't be found in a regular metal detector, and 2. That can get past the pilots armored door and the gun he has behind it?
That shit's hella ridiculous, I'm gonna wear tight fitting pants and put a banana in my tighty whiteys and look the x-ray operator straight in the eye with a serious face.
Btw i heard people got cancer after this because you get exposed to high radiation afterwards
i have never gotten into one of these scans i just get the usual routine also i have a bullet inside my body which doctors cannot take out so its just there and it takes 15min to explain it to airlines.
On November 19 2010 07:49 Fa1nT wrote: When another plane gets crashed, bombed, someone shot on a plane, stabbed, etc, we will bring this topic back up and discuss it again.
Scenario: You have a job at an airport as the person who monitors the body scanner. Your family is going on a trip and has to fly from the same airport. When they pass through the scanner you see your entire family naked and are traumatized for the rest of your life. SHIT JUST GOT REAL.
On November 19 2010 07:34 Nazarid wrote: if these "pictures" were secure then why are so many people already out there on the web with these "secure" pictures? well if you want to have near naked pics taken of you and possibly released to public view you can use these new machines or just have some guy named bob pat ya down and be done with it... and if your selected to use the machine refuse it... there is no law that states you have to cooperate with that test.. you can always opt for a different method although this may lead to abusive behavior from the Airport security and possibly cost you thousands of dollars in court fees but its the point... I am an American and i shouldn't have to use the security machine that rapes my rights as an American citizen, I like my cloths thank you and no one but my wife needs to see my "business" when a simple full body pat down can do the same thing this machine does.
If you want a body pat you can get one. Also names are never attached to the pictures and the released ones have been -examples- released to the media so that they can't show an accurate representation. Furthermore, the faces are all blurred out in these ones. The reason these machines are there is because people don't want the full body pat downs. This is the most elegant solution to the problem of needing more info about what people have on their bodies but not wanting to impose on people's rights by having to grab their junk.
On November 19 2010 07:34 Nazarid wrote: if these "pictures" were secure then why are so many people already out there on the web with these "secure" pictures? well if you want to have near naked pics taken of you and possibly released to public view you can use these new machines or just have some guy named bob pat ya down and be done with it... and if your selected to use the machine refuse it... there is no law that states you have to cooperate with that test.. you can always opt for a different method although this may lead to abusive behavior from the Airport security and possibly cost you thousands of dollars in court fees but its the point... I am an American and i shouldn't have to use the security machine that rapes my rights as an American citizen, I like my cloths thank you and no one but my wife needs to see my "business" when a simple full body pat down can do the same thing this machine does.
If you want a body pat you can get one. Also names are never attached to the pictures and the released ones have been -examples- released to the media so that they can't show an accurate representation. Furthermore, the faces are all blurred out in these ones. The reason these machines are there is because people don't want the full body pat downs. This is the most elegant solution to the problem of needing more info about what people have on their bodies but not wanting to impose on people's rights by having to grab their junk.
So you're saying if a nameless, faceless person on the internet wanted a picture of your genitals, with no picture of your face, you'd be okay because they don't know your name, and won't see your face? Hmmm......Sounds a bit odd to me.
On November 19 2010 07:34 Nazarid wrote: if these "pictures" were secure then why are so many people already out there on the web with these "secure" pictures? well if you want to have near naked pics taken of you and possibly released to public view you can use these new machines or just have some guy named bob pat ya down and be done with it... and if your selected to use the machine refuse it... there is no law that states you have to cooperate with that test.. you can always opt for a different method although this may lead to abusive behavior from the Airport security and possibly cost you thousands of dollars in court fees but its the point... I am an American and i shouldn't have to use the security machine that rapes my rights as an American citizen, I like my cloths thank you and no one but my wife needs to see my "business" when a simple full body pat down can do the same thing this machine does.
If you want a body pat you can get one. Also names are never attached to the pictures and the released ones have been -examples- released to the media so that they can't show an accurate representation. Furthermore, the faces are all blurred out in these ones. The reason these machines are there is because people don't want the full body pat downs. This is the most elegant solution to the problem of needing more info about what people have on their bodies but not wanting to impose on people's rights by having to grab their junk.
So you're saying if a nameless, faceless person on the internet wanted a picture of your genitals, with no picture of your face, you'd be okay because they don't know your name, and won't see your face? Hmmm......Sounds a bit odd to me.
No, I'm saying that some pictures have been released (voluntarily on the pretext that faces are blurred) so that the public can know what's going on (and start shitstorming before they actually look in to the facts). That's no reason to say anything about pictures getting leaked, and even less reason to keep saying "nude" instead of what these pictures actually look like. When I walk through one of these things during my next flight, a picture will be taken, some random airport person who doesn't know me and probably never will will get 10 seconds to look at it, then throw it away because I won't have a bomb strapped to my gut. I really have absolutely no problem with this. In fact, I'd be happy if getting a chance to see a healthy person walk through made the security officer's day just that much better, considering the amount of gargantuan americans they'll have to look at throughout the day. That can't be a fun job, but if ten years from now, they catch some fat guy with C-4 taped up between his belly and his junk , it'll be worth every idiot complaining about the whole deal, every media-fuelled misconception and every angry TLer who thinks that this is all part of some 1984 fascist power grab.
Also absolutely everything in your post screams minsinformed and blown out of porportions.
Problem is that they may not force people to use these body scans right now, but once they're installed and operational then in time they will be mandatory. I have the impression that many of these privacy invading (might be coming off a bit paranoid here ^^) policies are first introduced in a mild manner as to not upset people, then they use this as a backbone to further expand and implement more excessive and intrusive policies and methods over time.
You know, we're on a RTS website and I have to wonder... Anyone else seeing the economic war going on? I mean, Al Qaeda spent maybe a giant 50$ to make that bastard of a bomb in that guy's trousers.US's answer? Millions of dollars spent into scanners.
On November 19 2010 07:36 Manifesto7 wrote: By keeping the American public fearful like this, the terrorists win without launching another attack. It is also the reason I won't fly out of the US again. It is an unacceptable level of intrusion just to take an airplane.
Unfortunately, I'd bet the majority of the population is so disarmed by FUD and a lack of respect that the outrage will eventually die.
It is also depressing that supporters seem to think you have a say in the matter, "Well is ok if they can't see my face" or, "as long as they don't save the pictures!". You have no say in the matter.
This is a huge violation of privacy and dignity it's sort of sad to see how some cultures have become so desensitized that they would allow these sort of things to happen.
On November 19 2010 07:36 Manifesto7 wrote: By keeping the American public fearful like this, the terrorists win without launching another attack. It is also the reason I won't fly out of the US again. It is an unacceptable level of intrusion just to take an airplane.
Unfortunately, I'd bet the majority of the population is so disarmed by FUD and a lack of respect that the outrage will eventually die.
It is also depressing that supporters seem to think you have a say in the matter, "Well is ok if they can't see my face" or, "as long as they don't save the pictures!". You have no say in the matter.
It's depressing to see people assuming the worst possible answer to all of these questions when it's been specifically stated that that's not the case. Obviously I don't want these pictures put up on a billboard in my hometown with my real picture and name plastered on them, but the fact is that this won't happen, no matter how often people make outlandish claims about the security of the images.
I just flew in from SF to Long Beach and they had these scanners in SF, I'm guessing they have them at every international airport now. But yeah, I skipped the scanner and went through the metal detector. It's kind of crazy to hear about this then actually see it at an airport.
On November 19 2010 07:36 Manifesto7 wrote: By keeping the American public fearful like this, the terrorists win without launching another attack. It is also the reason I won't fly out of the US again. It is an unacceptable level of intrusion just to take an airplane.
Unfortunately, I'd bet the majority of the population is so disarmed by FUD and a lack of respect that the outrage will eventually die.
It is also depressing that supporters seem to think you have a say in the matter, "Well is ok if they can't see my face" or, "as long as they don't save the pictures!". You have no say in the matter.
It's depressing to see people assuming the worst possible answer to all of these questions when it's been specifically stated that that's not the case. Obviously I don't want these pictures put up on a billboard in my hometown with my real picture and name plastered on them, but the fact is that this won't happen, no matter how often people make outlandish claims about the security of the images.
On November 19 2010 07:36 Manifesto7 wrote: By keeping the American public fearful like this, the terrorists win without launching another attack. It is also the reason I won't fly out of the US again. It is an unacceptable level of intrusion just to take an airplane.
Unfortunately, I'd bet the majority of the population is so disarmed by FUD and a lack of respect that the outrage will eventually die.
It is also depressing that supporters seem to think you have a say in the matter, "Well is ok if they can't see my face" or, "as long as they don't save the pictures!". You have no say in the matter.
It's depressing to see people assuming the worst possible answer to all of these questions when it's been specifically stated that that's not the case. Obviously I don't want these pictures put up on a billboard in my hometown with my real picture and name plastered on them, but the fact is that this won't happen, no matter how often people make outlandish claims about the security of the images.
You'd be making sense if you weren't attacking imaginary comments and scenarios.
Also, you do not have a choice on whether it happens or not. Sorry. Bureaucracy knows Best.
See: Sarcasm
People in this thread have suggested that these pictures could get leaked online, and that an operator might recognize people he or she knows in the scans. My comment was pertaining to the latter, namely, photos getting online and people being able to find out who they are. Neither of these are likely or even possible with the current system. Don't confuse taking a condescending tone (what I do) with being a moron (what the people who think that if they go through one of these there's a chance people they know will see the images are doing)
And of course I don't have a choice. I'm just pointing out that the people who do make the decisions have made some correctly. You can't base your arguments on theoretics about what the authorities could do with the system when they've been quite specific in saying that they're not doing that. If they do change their opinions and start changing policies, then of course it will warrant another look. Until then, anyone talking about having the images leaked is presenting a straw man argument. (Gasp, you're not the only one who can identify them)
I don't know if you know this, but at one point income taxes were, "Just going to be a few percent on the wealthy" and, "Metal detectors are a hassle but now we are all safe so don't worry".
Hundreds were leaked, so I don't know what you are talking about when you say people are unduly concerned. It is the typical authoritarian line that you don't have any reason to worry and it will never happen. No, it really isn't a strawman, even if it hadn't happened, it is a legitimate concern, albeit minor in the opposition to the scanners.
I am glad you are fine with the scanners. May you enjoy going through the Testicle Squeezing Administration's new checkpoints ^_________^
A lot of posters are completely missing the point that these scanners do not prevent bombs or other weapons from being taken on board. They are merely another taxpayer-funded boondoggle. They are hazardous, invasive, and ineffective.
What do they do about crippled people like in wheelchairs? Do they still have to submit to this kind of scan that requires them to have to stand up all the way
On November 19 2010 10:08 FinestHour wrote: What do they do about crippled people like in wheelchairs? Do they still have to submit to this kind of scan that requires them to have to stand up all the way
Yup. Did you expect anything different from the government?
On November 19 2010 09:54 Romantic wrote: I don't know if you know this, but at one point income taxes were, "Just going to be a few percent on the wealthy" and, "Metal detectors are a hassle but now we are all safe so don't worry".
Hundreds were leaked, so I don't know what you are talking about when you say people are unduly concerned. It is the typical authoritarian line that you don't have any reason to worry and it will never happen. No, it really isn't a strawman, even if it hadn't happened, it is a legitimate concern, albeit minor in the opposition to the scanners.
I am glad you are fine with the scanners. May you enjoy going through the Testicle Squeezing Administration's new checkpoints ^_________^
Yeah, I'll try to make sure I enjoy it next time I'm at the airport. As long as the security guy doesn't look like he's enjoying it I think I'll be fine ^^. Either way, the leak that did happen was from a breach in security protocols, and I'm sure there are plenty of people cursing at themselves and working to make sure they don't have that happen again, because if it does, the people arguing against the imaging will be given more ammunition.
Either way, yes, there is escalation in government, that's what it does. The fact is that there's no problem with some of that. Sure, income taxes may have seemed crazy back then, but now we accept them as being fairly normal, and that's not always a bad thing. It's a matter of not denying the premise. If you're okay with 1% of your income going to government, then it's a matter of finding out how much you're okay with giving up. Likewise, we're all willing to give up some privacy in the interest of being safer on planes. Again, this is another measure of figuring out how heavy security measures can get. In my opinion, it's fine. People in North America are way to squeamish about that stuff. You go to the beach looking way more revealed than any of these imaging machines, and if someone snapped a picture it could go online with your face on it. Hell, in europe it's pretty socially acceptable to go to nude beaches and the like. Roll back a bit, and people used to bathe in public areas as well. No big deal.
They are an invasion of privacy and send harmful radiation to the body. get rid of em. There are tons of ways to get bombs to go off at an airport. They aren't going to prevent every instance. No 1 is ever truly safe. EVER
On November 19 2010 10:19 FindingPride wrote: They are an invasion of privacy and send harmful radiation to the body. get rid of em. There are tons of ways to get bombs to go off at an airport. They aren't going to prevent every instance. No 1 is ever truly safe. EVER
I've gotten hundreds of chest x-rays and CT scans, and even radiation therapy. And I'm totally fine.
Trust me, going through this once isn't going to do shit.
On November 19 2010 10:19 FindingPride wrote: They are an invasion of privacy and send harmful radiation to the body. get rid of em. There are tons of ways to get bombs to go off at an airport. They aren't going to prevent every instance. No 1 is ever truly safe. EVER
I've gotten hundreds of chest x-rays and CT scans, and even radiation therapy. And I'm totally fine.
Trust me, going through this once isn't going to do shit.
. ....................................... The reason this shit happens is cause of people like you
On November 19 2010 09:54 Romantic wrote: I don't know if you know this, but at one point income taxes were, "Just going to be a few percent on the wealthy" and, "Metal detectors are a hassle but now we are all safe so don't worry".
Hundreds were leaked, so I don't know what you are talking about when you say people are unduly concerned. It is the typical authoritarian line that you don't have any reason to worry and it will never happen. No, it really isn't a strawman, even if it hadn't happened, it is a legitimate concern, albeit minor in the opposition to the scanners.
I am glad you are fine with the scanners. May you enjoy going through the Testicle Squeezing Administration's new checkpoints ^_________^
Yeah, I'll try to make sure I enjoy it next time I'm at the airport. As long as the security guy doesn't look like he's enjoying it I think I'll be fine ^^. Either way, the leak that did happen was from a breach in security protocols, and I'm sure there are plenty of people cursing at themselves and working to make sure they don't have that happen again, because if it does, the people arguing against the imaging will be given more ammunition.
Either way, yes, there is escalation in government, that's what it does. The fact is that there's no problem with some of that. Sure, income taxes may have seemed crazy back then, but now we accept them as being fairly normal, and that's not always a bad thing. It's a matter of not denying the premise. If you're okay with 1% of your income going to government, then it's a matter of finding out how much you're okay with giving up. Likewise, we're all willing to give up some privacy in the interest of being safer on planes. Again, this is another measure of figuring out how heavy security measures can get. In my opinion, it's fine. People in North America are way to squeamish about that stuff. You go to the beach looking way more revealed than any of these imaging machines, and if someone snapped a picture it could go online with your face on it. Hell, in europe it's pretty socially acceptable to go to nude beaches and the like. Roll back a bit, and people used to bathe in public areas as well. No big deal.
If you roll back a little bit people used to be ok with a lot of things that are abhorrent or not something they did out of desire but necessity. Don't think I really need to give any obvious examples. Principles apply generally not specifically.
The whole foundation behind massive airport security expenditures is made of sand to begin with, but yes people will accept some measures of security. These decisions should be made by travelers and airlines, not an unaccountable and unelected TSA desk jockey whose agency regularly fails bomb check tests even with the scanners, indicating that the only reason planes aren't falling out of the sky is that nobody is trying to make them.
The radiation dosage is negligible, there's really nothing to worry about there. What is troubling is that these TSA workers are making a lot of Americans feel uncomfortable (as in, physically and mentally uncomfortable when merely boarding a plane) because of the possibility of a terrorist attack. Terrorists 1 - 0 America.
On November 19 2010 10:31 funnybananaman wrote: i don't think its that big of a deal, i mean the same thing happens at the doctor and just like this its for a good reason.
But, uh, Bananaman, nobody forces me to get X-Rays at the doctor's office.
You are also trying to make the dangers seem equal, which is laughable. Your chances of getting cancer from the machine or raging because you missed your flight due to security and crashing your car are probably much higher than the chances of being hijacked.
No bananaman, it is not for a good reason. It is for FUD purposes.
@Synapse, the danger of dying in a hijacking are also negligible.
On November 19 2010 10:19 FindingPride wrote: They are an invasion of privacy and send harmful radiation to the body. get rid of em. There are tons of ways to get bombs to go off at an airport. They aren't going to prevent every instance. No 1 is ever truly safe. EVER
I've gotten hundreds of chest x-rays and CT scans, and even radiation therapy. And I'm totally fine.
Trust me, going through this once isn't going to do shit.
. ....................................... The reason this shit happens is cause of people like you
On November 19 2010 10:19 FindingPride wrote: They are an invasion of privacy and send harmful radiation to the body. get rid of em. There are tons of ways to get bombs to go off at an airport. They aren't going to prevent every instance. No 1 is ever truly safe. EVER
I've gotten hundreds of chest x-rays and CT scans, and even radiation therapy. And I'm totally fine.
Trust me, going through this once isn't going to do shit.
. ....................................... The reason this shit happens is cause of people like you
On November 19 2010 10:43 NyuNyu wrote: I wouldn't mind this I think its a great idea :/ you are all way to uncomfortable with your bodies. It can save lives come on people.
So can scanners at the grocery store. Principles apply generally not specifically.
the only thing that i find ridiculous is if you refuse the search, and don't want to get on the airplane, you get fined 20k? is that a joke or did i misread that? i can't imagine how that makes any sense whatsoever
On November 19 2010 10:19 FindingPride wrote: They are an invasion of privacy and send harmful radiation to the body. get rid of em. There are tons of ways to get bombs to go off at an airport. They aren't going to prevent every instance. No 1 is ever truly safe. EVER
I've gotten hundreds of chest x-rays and CT scans, and even radiation therapy. And I'm totally fine.
Trust me, going through this once isn't going to do shit.
. ....................................... The reason this shit happens is cause of people like you
On November 19 2010 10:19 FindingPride wrote: They are an invasion of privacy and send harmful radiation to the body. get rid of em. There are tons of ways to get bombs to go off at an airport. They aren't going to prevent every instance. No 1 is ever truly safe. EVER
I've gotten hundreds of chest x-rays and CT scans, and even radiation therapy. And I'm totally fine.
Trust me, going through this once isn't going to do shit.
. ....................................... The reason this shit happens is cause of people like you
What's that supposed to mean?
Any Radiation is bad for you.
Obviously ridiculous. The damage caused by radiation depends on wavelength, amplitude, proximity, and time exposed.
Certain key bands, like the x-rays used in these scanners and ultraviolet light emitted from sterilization lamps, are mutagens that damage your DNA. Other radiation that can hurt you comes from high temperature objects (burns) or high intensity visible light (blindness).
Edit: Basically, these scanners directly cause bodily harm in the form of DNA damage. Usually, this damage is insignificant and cells with faulty DNA either still function OK or are removed from the body. However, since these machines do nothing to enhance security and in fact create a false sense of confidence, they are not worth the health risk and monetary cost.
On November 19 2010 10:37 FindingPride wrote: Any Radiation is bad for you.
You should be aware that almost everything emits radiation and that there are many different types of radiation including both harmful and benign types. People are routinely subjected to X-rays for diagnosis like broken bones. The radiation used for these scans must be powerful enough to pass through the body.
Think about this in relation to the power of radiation needed when it does not pass through the body. The amount of radiation is much less and there is no evidence of prolonged exposure to this low level of radiation being harmful over time (granted this type of imaging has been less studied that exposure to diagnostic X-ray). Furthermore, only these "back-scatter" imaging machines use radiation for detection. The newer, more expensive MRI-like machines used only magnetic imaging, which is not harmful to the body.
As for the images being an invasion of privacy, the argument is ridiculous. The image generated is simply the outline generated by your skin. I doubt that a positive identification of a person from these images is possible. Someone who gets aroused from looking at these images is going to be aroused by looking at your shirt or at your crotch anyway, so stop kidding yourself. Besides, if you have the body it is unlikely that you are hiding it (people who get offended when they get attention when they wear close fitting clothes make me angry). If you don't have a body that you are proud of, maybe you should do something to improve your physical fitness. If you are too physically ill to exercise then you shouldn't ride on an airplane anyway. I hope these systems actually encourage people to work out, and they pose no health threat to you personally so unless you support the right to bring weapons on planes, then I have no idea why you would oppose this imaging.
**@zealotdriver - The radiation from these scanners does not even pass your skin and therefore does no DNA damage.
On November 19 2010 12:28 Zealotdriver wrote: Edit: Basically, these scanners directly cause bodily harm in the form of DNA damage. Usually, this damage is insignificant and cells with faulty DNA either still function OK or are removed from the body. However, since these machines do nothing to enhance security and in fact create a false sense of confidence, they are not worth the health risk and monetary cost.
Mind supporting your claim that they don't increase security? There was an attempt to bring the chemicals required to build a bomb on to a plane last december, that would not have worked if the passenger had taken one of these scans. (Source if you don't remember: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/12/26/white-house-failed-airline-bombing-attempted-act-terrorism/) Though the passenger didn't manage to actually make it all work out, this sparked the concern over having non-metallic explosives stuck on your body, in places that regular protocol wouldn't get. Theoretically, a very large person could use the fat on their chest to conceal more than enough explosives to blow up a plane, and this wouldn't even be caught by a regular patdown. That's why the enhanced patdowns include the area between the breasts for women, and the area between the legs for men. If you're going to argue about the swallowing/up butt solution, there's limited space, and getting the critical amount of explosives in such a small area would necessitate high quality refined ingredients to even make a dent in an airplane.
If you have a better solution to that specific problem, I'm sure the TSA would love to hear it (well, not really), but I doubt they'd have done this if they had a solution that worked this well without any of the privacy invasion stuff, because they're not too stupid to know that this would cause a shitstorm.
The real question is why this solution wasn't implemented before someone almost blew up a plane last winter. Anyways, your claim that these machines do nothing to enhance security is demonstrably false, because it tightens a loophole that was actually used.
People are overreacting, you don't go benjamin franklin when they scan your bags at the airport now do you? "omg they're gonna see my underwear that's so humiliating!". Bullshit man. I guess the majority of people would be against this and for that this scanner thing will catch on, but once the terrorists/random lunatics/spetsnaz/illuminati start hijacking planes again I think people will reconsider. Till then, lets just wait for the next sep 11 disaster to unfold, it's good thing I don't fly often.
I don't mind myself... Honestly, I wouldn't even care taking all my clothes off in front of a person if they didn't know me and they didn't save these pictures. It's for a good reason and I feel good enough about myself to let them see a X ray of me.
I don't exactly understand why it's so embarrasing myself, but if some people really feel that bad about having some fat in places they rather wouldn't have and well I'm not sure. The airport security isn't going to be commenting on that stuff, you'll go through, and nothing happens unless theres a bomb in your "Feces Propulstion System"... Nothing to see, just move on.
EDIT: Plus, nobody decides to get a career in an airport just to see nude pics, probably of the same sex. Overreacting at its finest here.
1. Support regimes and supply weapons to terrorists in the Midde East.
2. Guy ON THE NO FLY LIST (edit: some other database) gets on a plane with an underwear bomb that was woefully inadequate because he is pissed off.
3. Since the Testicle Surveying Agency fucked up and can't even properly execute the current level of security (by letting a guy on the No-Fly list on the plane), obviously you need to be electronically strip searched.
4. FUD 24\7 so nobody questions the ridiculousness of the situation.
5. Claim you are making America safe by doing exactly what the terrorists want you to do by being paranoid 24\7.
On November 19 2010 10:37 FindingPride wrote: Any Radiation is bad for you.
You should be aware that almost everything emits radiation and that there are many different types of radiation including both harmful and benign types. People are routinely subjected to X-rays for diagnosis like broken bones. The radiation used for these scans must be powerful enough to pass through the body.
Think about this in relation to the power of radiation needed when it does not pass through the body. The amount of radiation is much less and there is no evidence of prolonged exposure to this low level of radiation being harmful over time (granted this type of imaging has been less studied that exposure to diagnostic X-ray). Furthermore, only these "back-scatter" imaging machines use radiation for detection. The newer, more expensive MRI-like machines used only magnetic imaging, which is not harmful to the body.
As for the images being an invasion of privacy, the argument is ridiculous. The image generated is simply the outline generated by your skin. I doubt that a positive identification of a person from these images is possible. Someone who gets aroused from looking at these images is going to be aroused by looking at your shirt or at your crotch anyway, so stop kidding yourself. Besides, if you have the body it is unlikely that you are hiding it (people who get offended when they get attention when they wear close fitting clothes make me angry). If you don't have a body that you are proud of, maybe you should do something to improve your physical fitness. If you are too physically ill to exercise then you shouldn't ride on an airplane anyway. I hope these systems actually encourage people to work out, and they pose no health threat to you personally so unless you support the right to bring weapons on planes, then I have no idea why you would oppose this imaging.
**@zealotdriver - The radiation from these scanners does not even pass your skin and therefore does no DNA damage.
It may surprise you to learn this: skin cells have DNA that can be damaged by radiation. DNA damage in skin cells can cause skin cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_cancer
Are children subjected to invasive pat downs as well?
How do we keep ourselves protected from a child who was given a plastic explosive enema and not sent through the scanner because the "guardian" doesn't want their child exposed to radiation and the child shouldn't be subjected to sexual trauma. The child will be ok with it because they'll be going to heaven.
There's ways around this if you really want to hijack or blow up a plane. It doesn't take that much creativity. You just have to go a place where no one else will. I don't think it's that much of a stretch for people who are willing to fly a plane into a building to kill thousands.
These checks are letting fear rule people's lives.
Alas, because profiling is a dirty word, we are stuck with techniques that are neither non-invasive nor effective (at least according to an Israeli airport security expert, who arguably is the most qualified to talk about this stuff).
In Canada at least, children under 14 are not permitted to enter the body scanner without the parents consent. And I don't understand WTF is going on with the TSA. There is no reason whatsoever to be touching a persons groin. Not without SERIOUS suspicion that a person is concealing something there. And in that case the police should be called and they handle the search.
Unfortunately children do get patted down time and again. Again, there is no touching anywhere inappropriate. It is probably the toughest/most awkward part of the job, but most parents are understanding of the procedure when we explain it to them. A lot of the time, an open and honest dialogue with the passenger goes a long way.
On November 19 2010 14:39 GumThief wrote: In Canada at least, children under 14 are not permitted to enter the body scanner without the parents consent. And I don't understand WTF is going on with the TSA. There is no reason whatsoever to be touching a persons groin. Not without SERIOUS suspicion that a person is concealing something there. And in that case the police should be called and they handle the search.
Unfortunately children do get patted down time and again. Again, there is no touching anywhere inappropriate. It is probably the toughest/most awkward part of the job, but most parents are understanding of the procedure when we explain it to them. A lot of the time, an open and honest dialogue with the passenger goes a long way.
I can't help but notice that the child's consent to being man-handled isn't taken into account? Institutionalized child molestation now?
On November 19 2010 13:52 Hanners wrote: Are children subjected to invasive pat downs as well?
How do we keep ourselves protected from a child who was given a plastic explosive enema and not sent through the scanner because the "guardian" doesn't want their child exposed to radiation and the child shouldn't be subjected to sexual trauma. The child will be ok with it because they'll be going to heaven.
There's ways around this if you really want to hijack or blow up a plane. It doesn't take that much creativity. You just have to go a place where no one else will. I don't think it's that much of a stretch for people who are willing to fly a plane into a building to kill thousands.
These checks are letting fear rule people's lives.
On November 19 2010 14:50 Hanners wrote: I'm saying if the child doesn't want their crotch touched, they don't seem to have a choice in the matter > sounds like molestation to me.
re-read my post as you obviously did not. I am speaking from the procedures in Canada, where I clearly stated we do not, under any circumstance, touch a passengers crotch.
On November 19 2010 14:50 Hanners wrote: I'm saying if the child doesn't want their crotch touched, they don't seem to have a choice in the matter > sounds like molestation to me.
re-read my post as you obviously did not. I am speaking from the procedures in Canada, where I clearly stated we do not, under any circumstance, touch a passengers crotch.
On November 19 2010 14:50 Hanners wrote: I'm saying if the child doesn't want their crotch touched, they don't seem to have a choice in the matter > sounds like molestation to me.
re-read my post as you obviously did not. I am speaking from the procedures in Canada, where I clearly stated we do not, under any circumstance, touch a passengers crotch.
Then obviously Canada is a security risk.
Trolling I see :p. You don't know the first thing about airport screening i'd assume, and obviously I wont get into that on a public forum. But no, Canada is in no way a security risk. We just don't need to touch penis to secure a flight.
On November 19 2010 13:52 Hanners wrote: Are children subjected to invasive pat downs as well?
How do we keep ourselves protected from a child who was given a plastic explosive enema and not sent through the scanner because the "guardian" doesn't want their child exposed to radiation and the child shouldn't be subjected to sexual trauma. The child will be ok with it because they'll be going to heaven.
There's ways around this if you really want to hijack or blow up a plane. It doesn't take that much creativity. You just have to go a place where no one else will. I don't think it's that much of a stretch for people who are willing to fly a plane into a building to kill thousands.
These checks are letting fear rule people's lives.
This story wouldn't even be covered if it wasn't that guy's daughter lol. This is just a kid being a kid. They behave the same at the doctor's office or the dentist. Maybe if she was a few years older this would be interesting, but most 3 year olds act like that just because their parents don't buy them the candy that they want.
Someone posted this earlier, but some posters didn't read the thread and rushed to display their ignorance of biology and physics. Here it is again:
Four UCSF scientists sent a letter last April to the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, expressing concern about the health risks of full body scanners being implemented at U.S. airports. The co-signers were David Agard, PhD, John Sedat, PhD, (emeritus), and Robert Stroud, PhD, all professors of biochemistry and biophysics, and Marc Shuman, MD, professor of medicine (hematology/oncology)
The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).
Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.
The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search, ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.
• A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging. • B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesisprovoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk. • C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk. • D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose. • E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated. • F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined. • G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis. • H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?
IMO people need to look at the amazing opportunity airport security gives you. If you're being searched and patdown, moan and make strange animal noises when they get near your crotch. Guarentee it'll make for a good story and make the person doing it feel really really weirded out.
Let us explain. In preparing to deploy the scanners to airports across the country, the TSA studied the amount of radiation a person would be exposed to per scan to determine if the machines were safe. Scientists at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory found that the effective dose per screening was 1.58 microrems of radiation, while a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, said an adult would be exposed to 2.4 microrems of radiation per scan.
We understand those figures mean nothing to most people. So let's put it into perspective.
A single chest X-ray exposes a person to between 8,000 and 10,000 microrems (or 8 to 10 millirems), according to experts at Princeton University and the Department of Energy. A pack-a-day smoker exposes himself to 15,000 to 20,000 microrems of radiation a year (tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive lead and polonium). Put simply, it would take at least 3,300 body scans to reach the equivalent of one chest X-ray.
"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
From a utilitarian point of view this one is quite easy to figure out. Of course this method isn't 100% effective. There will always be human error involved along the chance that a harmful individual might just slip by unnoticed. Just because we can only be so careful doesn't mean we can ever be too careful. Even if this system only prevents one terrorist incident in a 100 year span I'd say it's use was justified.
don't you want to be strip searched illegally by the federal government without probable cause SLAVE???
edit: TSA confirmed it hired convicted child molesters and illegal immigrants to work the pornographic strip search scanners, and there's been multiple instances of TSA thugs handcuffing and intimidating women for opting out
TSA staff are told to harass Americans who opt out, this is all conditioning to get us used to being treated like slaves
also, they will bait-and-switch us to the scanner technology that they've already developed that doesn't give everyone cancer and no one will ever address the issue that the federal government is performing mandatory strip-searches on all American citizens without probable cause (ie. illegal)
On November 19 2010 15:23 kidcrash wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
From a utilitarian point of view this one is quite easy to figure out. Of course this method isn't 100% effective. There will always be human error involved along the chance that a harmful individual might just slip by unnoticed. Just because we can only be so careful doesn't mean we can ever be too careful. Even if this system only prevents one terrorist incident in a 100 year span I'd say it's use was justified.
For the hundreds of millions being spent to maybe or maybe not save one or two people you couldn't keep a few thousand Africans alive? Utilitarian my ass.
I am truly astonished that anyone can actually support these incredibly expensive useless radiation machines (that is, unless you work for one of the companies that manufacture these duds). I guess some people really are willing to give away anything for the illusion of security, especially after the paranoia and fearmongering since 9/11.
Where to even begin on these worthless machines? I could talk about the grand, big picture problems like giving up fundamental liberties and even the most basic levels of privacy for tiny, incremental increases in personal safety, or how these machines can be argued to be violating the 4th Amendment in the US. I could talk about the practical problems like how these machines could violate child pornography laws in many places or how these things might actually cause cancer (apparently at the same rate people die from terrorist attacks, thanks to that poster). I could talk about how the terrorists have basically won when, with no continuous effort on their behalf, so many innocent citizens are having their freedoms violated. I could talk about the ethical concerns like the possible already occurring storage of nude photographs of innocent citizens (imagine the potential shitstorm if some really attractive celebrity like Scarlett Johanssen went through one of these things and some security dude sold her nudes). I could talk about the economical concerns like how this is mandated on private airline companies and is therefore basically corporate welfare for the people who build these machines, and how the TSA, known for being incompetent, have basically monopolized air travel security.
I could address posts directly, after all almost everyone in this thread who have stated they're in favor of these measures have used absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments, most of which have basically boiled down to "it's this or YOUR PLANE GETS BLOWN UP BY A TERRORIST. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? FOR THE TERRORISTS TO WIN?". Then there's the dudes going "if it stops even just ONE terrorist attack!". Really guys? And then there's this guy:
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
Come on bro, in the few minutes you spent typing that up, you could've easily done the bare minimum of research on these machines or the TSA and come to the conclusion that they don't get the job done.
I could go on and on about any of the practical, legal, economical, ethical, political, or philosophical reasons why these things are a bad idea, but I don't have to. Why not? Because there's one undeniable fact that prevents this from even being a debate in the first place: these machines don't work. Oh, don't take my word for it, how about the word of an Israeli airport security expert? Even the people who make these things admit they don't work. Or here's another treat for you Germans, a video proving they don't work. That's right - these things can form a pretty detailed outline of your genitals, but they're useless against anyone actually trying to blow up a plane. They wouldn't have stopped the 2005 London train bombing, or the 2006 liquid bomb attack. They wouldn't even have stopped the 2009 Christmas bomber, who had plastic explosive powder sewn into his underwear.
So basically everyone trying to argue in favor of these money sinks is arguing from a completely incorrect assumption - that these things work in the first place. They don't work, and when they do, that's when we can have the real debates on how these things cause cancer and make child porn and violate the 4th Amendment. This is pretty basic stuff people, if you're going to make an argument, at least make sure the premises are true to begin with.
On November 19 2010 15:23 kidcrash wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
From a utilitarian point of view this one is quite easy to figure out. Of course this method isn't 100% effective. There will always be human error involved along the chance that a harmful individual might just slip by unnoticed. Just because we can only be so careful doesn't mean we can ever be too careful. Even if this system only prevents one terrorist incident in a 100 year span I'd say it's use was justified.
Exactly! In fact, why don't we get everyone naked, give them a special pill to knock them unconscious 24 hours ahead of the flight, load them onto the planes like cattle, and wake them up on the other side! It is an idea worthy of the author of your quote anyway.
On November 19 2010 15:33 hitman133 wrote: Imagine some hot celebrities like Megan Fox, Mirranda Kerr walk through this scanner... *sigh* I wanna change my job to TSA so badly,lol
Like i said, TSA already confirmed it hires convicted sex offenders
edit: the first week they were in use, some guy punched his boss out for making fun of his penis he saw in the porno scanners
On November 19 2010 15:23 kidcrash wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
From a utilitarian point of view this one is quite easy to figure out. Of course this method isn't 100% effective. There will always be human error involved along the chance that a harmful individual might just slip by unnoticed. Just because we can only be so careful doesn't mean we can ever be too careful. Even if this system only prevents one terrorist incident in a 100 year span I'd say it's use was justified.
For the hundreds of millions being spent to maybe or maybe not save one or two people you couldn't keep a few thousand Africans alive? Utilitarian my ass.
The difference is that the Airlines Industry is doing you a favor by letting you use their service. I'm not obligated to feed people in Africa. Yes I understand that it's actually the US government enforcing these rules and not the airlines. There is still a difference between a privilege and sheer altruism.
Also I'm sure most utilitarians would argue that they would find other ways to feed those Africans if they could.
I'm pretty much for abolishing it (I laughed pretty hard on the first one though...actually I laughed hard on both of them)
srs question: what if one of the TSA officers is actually a disguised/undercover terrorist -> what I think about this? LOLOMG must make all the TSA officers grope each other before "servicing" other people... (resultant cycle breaks everything)
On November 19 2010 15:23 kidcrash wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
From a utilitarian point of view this one is quite easy to figure out. Of course this method isn't 100% effective. There will always be human error involved along the chance that a harmful individual might just slip by unnoticed. Just because we can only be so careful doesn't mean we can ever be too careful. Even if this system only prevents one terrorist incident in a 100 year span I'd say it's use was justified.
For the hundreds of millions being spent to maybe or maybe not save one or two people you couldn't keep a few thousand Africans alive? Utilitarian my ass.
The difference is that the Airlines Industry is doing you a favor by letting you use their service. I'm not obligated to feed people in Africa. Yes I understand that it's actually the US government enforcing these rules and not the airlines. There is still a difference between a privilege and sheer altruism.
Also I'm sure most utilitarians would argue that they would find other ways to feed those Africans if they could.
So you bring up airlines and personal obligations and then admit that the government is responsible? Ok....
Let us explain. In preparing to deploy the scanners to airports across the country, the TSA studied the amount of radiation a person would be exposed to per scan to determine if the machines were safe. Scientists at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory found that the effective dose per screening was 1.58 microrems of radiation, while a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, said an adult would be exposed to 2.4 microrems of radiation per scan.
We understand those figures mean nothing to most people. So let's put it into perspective.
A single chest X-ray exposes a person to between 8,000 and 10,000 microrems (or 8 to 10 millirems), according to experts at Princeton University and the Department of Energy. A pack-a-day smoker exposes himself to 15,000 to 20,000 microrems of radiation a year (tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive lead and polonium). Put simply, it would take at least 3,300 body scans to reach the equivalent of one chest X-ray.
The FDA references many published works, and concludes
An individual would have to receive more than 1000 screenings to begin to approach the annual limit...the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use x-ray security system are miniscule....we are confident that full-body x-ray security products and practices do not pose a significant risk to the public health.
The FDA believes the risk of health consequences to be small, but it does exist. These machines do inflict damage in small amounts.
Edit: The FDA relied entirely on measurements of radiation from the machines and computer models to estimate the amount of radiation absorbed by the skin and other organs. There is no actual data on health effects, merely estimates that imply the dosage is very low. Even with the low dosage, damage still occurs.
Comparisons to medical x-rays open up a weakness in the pro-scanner argument. Medical x-rays have known benefits in providing information for immediate care. Air travel has defined benefits as well. These scanners have no such defined benefit to the user or even the security personnel, since explosives and other weapons can still be hidden on or in the body, checked bags, and carry-on bags.
While comparing the radiation dosage from the scanner to these other sources shows that it is a relatively low dose, it also calls attention to the lack of any positive benefit from the scanner while still causing some damage.
Let us explain. In preparing to deploy the scanners to airports across the country, the TSA studied the amount of radiation a person would be exposed to per scan to determine if the machines were safe. Scientists at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory found that the effective dose per screening was 1.58 microrems of radiation, while a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, said an adult would be exposed to 2.4 microrems of radiation per scan.
We understand those figures mean nothing to most people. So let's put it into perspective.
A single chest X-ray exposes a person to between 8,000 and 10,000 microrems (or 8 to 10 millirems), according to experts at Princeton University and the Department of Energy. A pack-a-day smoker exposes himself to 15,000 to 20,000 microrems of radiation a year (tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive lead and polonium). Put simply, it would take at least 3,300 body scans to reach the equivalent of one chest X-ray.
Wow, statements from the TSA administrator? Well, he's clearly an unbiased outside observer who would have a nice objective opinion on this with absolutely no stake in the topic matter at all!
By the way, your post (and that article) is fundamentally wrong. Let us explain. In other ways of receiving radiation, for instance x-rays, or the constant background radiation one would be subject to when on an airplane at a high altitude, the radiation passes through or is dispersed throughout the person's whole body. These calculations of what levels of radiation would be dangerous, are made with that in mind.
The specific delivery system of radiation from these machines are directed right at the top layer of the person's skin only, and is thus much more concentrated. Put simply, it's the difference between standing in sunlight and standing underneath a giant magnifying glass.
On November 19 2010 15:29 Krigwin wrote: I am truly astonished that anyone can actually support these incredibly expensive useless radiation machines (that is, unless you work for one of the companies that manufacture these duds). I guess some people really are willing to give away anything for the illusion of security, especially after the paranoia and fearmongering since 9/11.
Where to even begin on these worthless machines? I could talk about the grand, big picture problems like giving up fundamental liberties and even the most basic levels of privacy for tiny, incremental increases in personal safety, or how these machines can be argued to be violating the 4th Amendment in the US. I could talk about the practical problems like how these machines could violate child pornography laws in many places or how these things might actually cause cancer (apparently at the same rate people die from terrorist attacks, thanks to that poster). I could talk about how the terrorists have basically won when, with no continuous effort on their behalf, so many innocent citizens are having their freedoms violated. I could talk about the ethical concerns like the possible already occurring storage of nude photographs of innocent citizens (imagine the potential shitstorm if some really attractive celebrity like Scarlett Johanssen went through one of these things and some security dude sold her nudes). I could talk about the economical concerns like how this is mandated on private airline companies and is therefore basically corporate welfare for the people who build these machines, and how the TSA, known for being incompetent, have basically monopolized air travel security.
I could address posts directly, after all almost everyone in this thread who have stated they're in favor of these measures have used absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments, most of which have basically boiled down to "it's this or YOUR PLANE GETS BLOWN UP BY A TERRORIST. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? FOR THE TERRORISTS TO WIN?". Then there's the dudes going "if it stops even just ONE terrorist attack!". Really guys? And then there's this guy:
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
Come on bro, in the few minutes you spent typing that up, you could've easily done the bare minimum of research on these machines or the TSA and come to the conclusion that they don't get the job done.
I could go on and on about any of the practical, legal, economical, ethical, political, or philosophical reasons why these things are a bad idea, but I don't have to. Why not? Because there's one undeniable fact that prevents this from even being a debate in the first place: these machines don't work. Oh, don't take my word for it, how about the word of an Israeli airport security expert? Even the people who make these things admit they don't work. Or here's another treat for you Germans, a video proving they don't work. That's right - these things can form a pretty detailed outline of your genitals, but they're useless against anyone actually trying to blow up a plane. They wouldn't have stopped the 2005 London train bombing, or the 2006 liquid bomb attack. They wouldn't even have stopped the 2009 Christmas bomber, who had plastic explosive powder sewn into his underwear.
So basically everyone trying to argue in favor of these money sinks is arguing from a completely incorrect assumption - that these things work in the first place. They don't work, and when they do, that's when we can have the real debates on how these things cause cancer and make child porn and violate the 4th Amendment. This is pretty basic stuff people, if you're going to make an argument, at least make sure the premises are true to begin with.
thank you..end of discussion...or the beginning of the end of america
On November 19 2010 15:23 kidcrash wrote: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
From a utilitarian point of view this one is quite easy to figure out. Of course this method isn't 100% effective. There will always be human error involved along the chance that a harmful individual might just slip by unnoticed. Just because we can only be so careful doesn't mean we can ever be too careful. Even if this system only prevents one terrorist incident in a 100 year span I'd say it's use was justified.
Exactly! In fact, why don't we get everyone naked, give them a special pill to knock them unconscious 24 hours ahead of the flight, load them onto the planes like cattle, and wake them up on the other side! It is an idea worthy of the author of your quote anyway.
You can be too careful with anything.
I like this idea. Saves you the boredom of the flight, waiting in lines for security, having to worry about getting to the gate on time, connections, etc. Basically this idea is genius and I think it should be implemented.
On November 19 2010 15:29 Krigwin wrote: I am truly astonished that anyone can actually support these incredibly expensive useless radiation machines (that is, unless you work for one of the companies that manufacture these duds). I guess some people really are willing to give away anything for the illusion of security, especially after the paranoia and fearmongering since 9/11.
Where to even begin on these worthless machines? I could talk about the grand, big picture problems like giving up fundamental liberties and even the most basic levels of privacy for tiny, incremental increases in personal safety, or how these machines can be argued to be violating the 4th Amendment in the US. I could talk about the practical problems like how these machines could violate child pornography laws in many places or how these things might actually cause cancer (apparently at the same rate people die from terrorist attacks, thanks to that poster). I could talk about how the terrorists have basically won when, with no continuous effort on their behalf, so many innocent citizens are having their freedoms violated. I could talk about the ethical concerns like the possible already occurring storage of nude photographs of innocent citizens (imagine the potential shitstorm if some really attractive celebrity like Scarlett Johanssen went through one of these things and some security dude sold her nudes). I could talk about the economical concerns like how this is mandated on private airline companies and is therefore basically corporate welfare for the people who build these machines, and how the TSA, known for being incompetent, have basically monopolized air travel security.
I could address posts directly, after all almost everyone in this thread who have stated they're in favor of these measures have used absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments, most of which have basically boiled down to "it's this or YOUR PLANE GETS BLOWN UP BY A TERRORIST. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? FOR THE TERRORISTS TO WIN?". Then there's the dudes going "if it stops even just ONE terrorist attack!". Really guys? And then there's this guy:
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
Come on bro, in the few minutes you spent typing that up, you could've easily done the bare minimum of research on these machines or the TSA and come to the conclusion that they don't get the job done.
I could go on and on about any of the practical, legal, economical, ethical, political, or philosophical reasons why these things are a bad idea, but I don't have to. Why not? Because there's one undeniable fact that prevents this from even being a debate in the first place: these machines don't work. Oh, don't take my word for it, how about the word of an Israeli airport security expert? Even the people who make these things admit they don't work. Or here's another treat for you Germans, a video proving they don't work. That's right - these things can form a pretty detailed outline of your genitals, but they're useless against anyone actually trying to blow up a plane. They wouldn't have stopped the 2005 London train bombing, or the 2006 liquid bomb attack. They wouldn't even have stopped the 2009 Christmas bomber, who had plastic explosive powder sewn into his underwear.
So basically everyone trying to argue in favor of these money sinks is arguing from a completely incorrect assumption - that these things work in the first place. They don't work, and when they do, that's when we can have the real debates on how these things cause cancer and make child porn and violate the 4th Amendment. This is pretty basic stuff people, if you're going to make an argument, at least make sure the premises are true to begin with.
No, the sole reason for them to implement this device is because the government wants to invade our privacy, not save lives. Right?
On November 19 2010 02:08 revy wrote: A society willing to trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
Benjamin Franklin!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
Those who sacrifice security to uphold frivolous freedoms die.
Frivolous freedoms? I consider my right not to get naked infront of the government when they have no reason to suspect me anything but frivolous.
Small penis eh? (that's the response his post really deserves)
No-one is asking you to stand up in front of congress nor are you completely naked. You can see more at a swimming bath than on these scanners.
You could possibly attack them on the grounds that they're a waste of money and time but not "getting naked infront of the governement". Plus they can already do strip searches if they want.
1. "The primary goal of modern screening and enhanced interrogation techniques should be to maximize control while presenting to the public an image that causes them to react a certain way; "What is the big deal?"" 2. "Promoting ridicule of dissenters by their peers is the most effective way of ending misbehavior" (Referring to prisoners of the Contras, but applicable)
- CIA internal documents released under FOIA
"Its like swimming" - Senator on waterboarding
"Loud music, standing up, and bright lights aren't torture. That is silly! I once pulled an all-nighter and I didn't feel tortured" - Romantic parodying people who have fallen for quotes 1 & 2
"Haha your penises are just small!! We already don't have freedom so just hush up" - Teamliquid on people who question nakey scanners
CIA got this one right. I have a headache trying to read the dismissive responses and by sheer annoyance I've decided to give up. I'm sure they meant for peer pressure to silence dissent, but hey, works pretty damn well!
On November 19 2010 02:08 revy wrote: A society willing to trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
Benjamin Franklin!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
Those who sacrifice security to uphold frivolous freedoms die.
Frivolous freedoms? I consider my right not to get naked infront of the government when they have no reason to suspect me anything but frivolous.
Small penis eh? (that's the response his post really deserves)
No-one is asking you to stand up in front of congress nor are you completely naked. You can see more at a swimming bath than on these scanners.
You could possibly attack them on the grounds that they're a waste of money and time but not "getting naked infront of the governement". Plus they can already do strip searches if they want.
You're currently ridiculing someone on the internet for standing up for their rights on the internet. What's your point, exactly?
Guys what if the TSA is reading this thread? And then they'll find out our real identities, and subject us to all of this searching when we fly. And just for saying this they'll cut off my inter--
On November 19 2010 15:29 Krigwin wrote: I am truly astonished that anyone can actually support these incredibly expensive useless radiation machines (that is, unless you work for one of the companies that manufacture these duds). I guess some people really are willing to give away anything for the illusion of security, especially after the paranoia and fearmongering since 9/11.
Where to even begin on these worthless machines? I could talk about the grand, big picture problems like giving up fundamental liberties and even the most basic levels of privacy for tiny, incremental increases in personal safety, or how these machines can be argued to be violating the 4th Amendment in the US. I could talk about the practical problems like how these machines could violate child pornography laws in many places or how these things might actually cause cancer (apparently at the same rate people die from terrorist attacks, thanks to that poster). I could talk about how the terrorists have basically won when, with no continuous effort on their behalf, so many innocent citizens are having their freedoms violated. I could talk about the ethical concerns like the possible already occurring storage of nude photographs of innocent citizens (imagine the potential shitstorm if some really attractive celebrity like Scarlett Johanssen went through one of these things and some security dude sold her nudes). I could talk about the economical concerns like how this is mandated on private airline companies and is therefore basically corporate welfare for the people who build these machines, and how the TSA, known for being incompetent, have basically monopolized air travel security.
I could address posts directly, after all almost everyone in this thread who have stated they're in favor of these measures have used absolutely ridiculous straw man arguments, most of which have basically boiled down to "it's this or YOUR PLANE GETS BLOWN UP BY A TERRORIST. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? FOR THE TERRORISTS TO WIN?". Then there's the dudes going "if it stops even just ONE terrorist attack!". Really guys? And then there's this guy:
We are not as safe as possible on airplanes, and this particular precaution is a major step forward in stopping people from getting things carried on their bodies in to airplanes. Sure, we've stopped the issue with planes being used as weapons (via pilots being protected) but we haven't eliminated the possibility of someone blowing up a plane as it leaves an airport over a major city. (almost as bad)
I fly a lot, and I've been through the system enough times to have been able to blow up several planes myself if I had what I needed. You can stick ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, or liquid explosives on your body on the insides of your thighs, on your back or belly, or in the case of overweight people or women, on their chests. This can all be ended by these body scans, which aren't even viewed by people who can see what you actually look like in person (many airports forward them and their results back and forth to a remote room where someone looks over them). Yes, people can shove explosives up their butts, or swallow them or whatever, but the amount needed to do enough damage to crash a plane would be excessively difficult to get through like that.
This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms, it has to do with preventing a very real threat. Sure, someone will sort of see kind of what you might look like without your clothes on, but that person will not see your face or know your name. This is a minor inconvenience that you willingly sign up for when you decide to fly. It's worth that to prevent people from dying. If you think otherwise, then you're putting your own selfishness above the lives of others, and that's far worse than absurd arguments involving parallels to what's happening in the Gaza Strip right now. Honestly, it's people like you who say things like what you wrote that actually lend credence to the theory that people really don't know what's best for them and that government needs to be more heavy-handed. If you don't want that (I sure as hell don't) then you need to start picking your battles.
Come on bro, in the few minutes you spent typing that up, you could've easily done the bare minimum of research on these machines or the TSA and come to the conclusion that they don't get the job done.
I could go on and on about any of the practical, legal, economical, ethical, political, or philosophical reasons why these things are a bad idea, but I don't have to. Why not? Because there's one undeniable fact that prevents this from even being a debate in the first place: these machines don't work. Oh, don't take my word for it, how about the word of an Israeli airport security expert? Even the people who make these things admit they don't work. Or here's another treat for you Germans, a video proving they don't work. That's right - these things can form a pretty detailed outline of your genitals, but they're useless against anyone actually trying to blow up a plane. They wouldn't have stopped the 2005 London train bombing, or the 2006 liquid bomb attack. They wouldn't even have stopped the 2009 Christmas bomber, who had plastic explosive powder sewn into his underwear.
So basically everyone trying to argue in favor of these money sinks is arguing from a completely incorrect assumption - that these things work in the first place. They don't work, and when they do, that's when we can have the real debates on how these things cause cancer and make child porn and violate the 4th Amendment. This is pretty basic stuff people, if you're going to make an argument, at least make sure the premises are true to begin with.
No, the sole reason for them to implement this device is because the government wants to invade our privacy, not save lives. Right?
The issue with TSA security is that all in all, it is still a joke. Read this article and look at the security measures today and you will realize that things really have not changed.
As someone who flies pretty regularly, I have dealt with the TSA on a number of occasions, but the most recent flight I was on was the one that really surprised me. I was flying out to florida, and had a knife and a leatherman multi tool (this thing, for those who do not know what it is) in my checked luggage and TSA approved baggage screeners stole both out of my luggage, and did not leave a "This was inspected by TSA" tag inside. I went through a great deal of trouble to not even have the airlines acknowledge that I had even flown on that day.
Somewhat disgruntled because of this, on my flight back home, I said screw it, I will just toss my new knife and leathermen in my carryon, and if they screen it and take it out, I will ask them to just you know...take it or provide me with a way to make sure it is not taken during the baggage screening process. Well, to my surprise despite both the knife and leathermen being on the top of the bag (so they would not have to tear through everything when they went to take them out), my bag went through security just fine. Security at its finest no?
Despite the multi-billion dollar budget the TSA has, the trained screeners could not identify the fact that I had not one, but two weapons in my carryon bag. One of which I might have been able to use to get to the captain's cabin.
I believe that TSA is almost completely unnecessary and that we should be spending money on things that actually make a difference.
I feel more sorry for the TSA personnel who have to look at the images of nude bodies all day than I feel sorry for the people who feel like their privacy is being invaded. I don't really want to see the majority of people naked, especially considering the weight issues prevalent in America.
On November 19 2010 02:08 revy wrote: A society willing to trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
Benjamin Franklin!
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
Those who sacrifice security to uphold frivolous freedoms die.
Frivolous freedoms? I consider my right not to get naked infront of the government when they have no reason to suspect me anything but frivolous.
Small penis eh? (that's the response his post really deserves)
No-one is asking you to stand up in front of congress nor are you completely naked. You can see more at a swimming bath than on these scanners.
You could possibly attack them on the grounds that they're a waste of money and time but not "getting naked infront of the governement". Plus they can already do strip searches if they want.
What a ridiculous comment.
They can do a strip search if they have probable cause, me walking through to get onto a plane is not probable cause that I'm going to blow the plane up. These scanners are tantamount to an unreasonable search and seizure, which I'm protected from by the fourth amendment.
I love airports, I got picked for a "random" inspection and this hot female employee did things that my own hands wouldn't be proud of. Thank god for airports!
No its not against private anything. Going to an airport is voluntary, hence nude body scanning is voluntary, unlike everything the government does, like taxes.
On November 20 2010 05:52 Hider wrote: No its not against private anything. Going to an airport is voluntary, hence nude body scanning is voluntary, unlike everything the government does, like taxes.
nope.
if I go to an airport it's to *go* somewhere else, which is voluntary. HOWEVER, I didn't go to the airport to have my body scanned, nude, which is NOT voluntary.
It's smoke and mirrors. Terrorists (Outside of Hollywood) aren't caught at the 11th hour by this security circus. They are caught by good intelligence gathering.
So, in essence, you're not even giving up your rights for safety - you're giving them up for the illusion of safety.
On November 20 2010 05:52 Hider wrote: No its not against private anything. Going to an airport is voluntary, hence nude body scanning is voluntary, unlike everything the government does, like taxes.
o shizz u jus went thurr....irs - (fed income tax = illegal/voluntary), cia = nazi-nigs, our country is no more the land of the free but the land of the sheeple being led to slaughter...get ready for hyper inflation (hyper = the most b.a. adjective ever btw), more false flag attacks on the sheeple, and marshall law....
i got a question..if shizz really does hit the fan, what are you prepared to do.....(im still trying to figure that out myself) sheeple are way too easily distracted and forget past events just as easily... "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
"I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747," Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.
"That's why we haven't put them in our airport," Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.
If anyone has to deal with a real terrorist problem, it's Israel.
On November 20 2010 05:52 Hider wrote: No its not against private anything. Going to an airport is voluntary, hence nude body scanning is voluntary, unlike everything the government does, like taxes.
o shizz u jus went thurr....irs - (fed income tax), cia = nazi-nigs, our country is no more the land of the free but the land of the sheeple being led to slaughter...get ready for hyper inflation (hyper = the most b.a. adjective ever btw), more false flag attacks on the sheeple, and marshall law....
i got a question..if shizz really does hit the fan, what are you prepared to do.....(im still trying to figure that out myself) sheeple are way too easily distracted and forget the past events just as easily... "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
that kinda reminds me about a wallpaper I randomly saw about freedom.... http://4walled.org/show-19489 (they said not to hotlink images...zzz)
An individual would have to receive more than 1000 screenings to begin to approach the annual limit...the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use x-ray security system are miniscule....we are confident that full-body x-ray security products and practices do not pose a significant risk to the public health.
The FDA believes the risk of health consequences to be small, but it does exist. These machines do inflict damage in small amounts.
Edit: The FDA relied entirely on measurements of radiation from the machines and computer models to estimate the amount of radiation absorbed by the skin and other organs. There is no actual data on health effects, merely estimates that imply the dosage is very low. Even with the low dosage, damage still occurs.
Comparisons to medical x-rays open up a weakness in the pro-scanner argument. Medical x-rays have known benefits in providing information for immediate care. Air travel has defined benefits as well. These scanners have no such defined benefit to the user or even the security personnel, since explosives and other weapons can still be hidden on or in the body, checked bags, and carry-on bags.
While comparing the radiation dosage from the scanner to these other sources shows that it is a relatively low dose, it also calls attention to the lack of any positive benefit from the scanner while still causing some damage.
Well written. And let's face it, the FDA can't even manage to keep your food and drugs safe.
The other thing people fail to take into account is all the other radiation you're exposed to on a daily basis. Sure it may take 3,000 Body scans to cause "damage." But what about your cell phone, the metal detector, x-rays at the doctor, etc. All that stuff adds up. And think about it, there's a reason the people scanning you are nowhere near the machine.
Getting to the topic of security, if the TSA really believed these to be safe, a definite non-violation of your civil rights, or effective in deterring terrorism would they still offer an "enhanced pat down?"
On November 20 2010 05:52 Hider wrote: No its not against private anything. Going to an airport is voluntary, hence nude body scanning is voluntary, unlike everything the government does, like taxes.
o shizz u jus went thurr....irs - (fed income tax), cia = nazi-nigs, our country is no more the land of the free but the land of the sheeple being led to slaughter...get ready for hyper inflation (hyper = the most b.a. adjective ever btw), more false flag attacks on the sheeple, and marshall law....
i got a question..if shizz really does hit the fan, what are you prepared to do.....(im still trying to figure that out myself) sheeple are way too easily distracted and forget the past events just as easily... "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
that kinda reminds me about a wallpaper I randomly saw about freedom.... http://4walled.org/show-19489 (they said not to hotlink images...zzz)
lolz...current state of america summed up in that pic
On November 20 2010 06:49 Nazarid wrote: Well i have a simple solution! if you dont like it refuse the test get groped and get on your plane and forget about it... or !! just dont fly.
some people's jobs need you to fly frequently, and that's the only job offer to them...so um...wut.
On November 20 2010 06:42 FindingPride wrote: Israel been dealing with terrorist long before we have, Why aren't we talking to them?
Israel is the absolute last country on the planet I would consult about terrorism.
Well i have a simple solution! if you dont like it refuse the test get groped and get on your plane and forget about it... or !! just dont fly.
Yeah, fuck freedom. TSA agents should go around groping random pedestrians too, just to make sure they aren't carrying explosives around for domestic terrorist acts. If you don't like it you can just not use the sidewalk and stay inside all day.
Seriously, i got taken aside because i had some 2 oz cologne bottle (or maybe because my last name is middle eastern) and i was notified that carrying cologne is not allowed anymore, whereas my texan white friend had 3-4 empty bullet shells he carrys around as a suvernior, but didn't get caught until we went through the metal detector in mexico.
Final Conclusion: Security in mexico is better than in the United States.
On November 20 2010 06:55 Hinanawi wrote: Yeah, fuck freedom. TSA agents should go around groping random pedestrians too, just to make sure they aren't carrying explosives around for domestic terrorist acts. If you don't like it you can just not use the sidewalk and stay inside all day.
while we're at it, we should go grope the politicians to see if they won't blow themselves up and screw up the congress too! -_-
I can not believe how many of you don't give a shit. I'm in absolute shock.
Honestly...any of you in favor of this that are American citizens should revoke your citizenship immediately.
There is NEVER an acceptable excuse for the Government to infringe on your rights, or deny you freedom.
Al-Qaeda won on 9/11. Not because they managed to kill people, but because you still fucking live in fear of them...because you're willing to give away your rights & freedoms.
I'd be fucking ashamed to me an American putting up with this shit.
On November 20 2010 07:03 nihlon wrote: "No, no this is perfectly safe," says the doctor before he puts on a suit made out of lead and walks into a different room.
The problem is that it will only work for people concealing knives and hinge like that. Terrorists can still hide a pound of explosives up their ass and it won't be found by this
On November 20 2010 07:47 samalie wrote: I can not believe how many of you don't give a shit. I'm in absolute shock.
Honestly...any of you in favor of this that are American citizens should revoke your citizenship immediately.
There is NEVER an acceptable excuse for the Government to infringe on your rights, or deny you freedom.
Al-Qaeda won on 9/11. Not because they managed to kill people, but because you still fucking live in fear of them...because you're willing to give away your rights & freedoms.
I'd be fucking ashamed to me an American putting up with this shit.
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.
On November 20 2010 07:03 nihlon wrote: "No, no this is perfectly safe," says the doctor before he puts on a suit made out of lead and walks into a different room.
Exacty.
The reason for this is that prolonged exposure causes the damage. The "doctor" (I don't think it would be doctors responsible for this at an airport) wearing the suit of lead has to leave the area because they are likely to be overseeing x-rays all day long. If they were only seeing one, they'd be just as safe as any one time subject getting theirs - which is to say, they'd be perfectly fine.
I remember reading about this two or so years ago and not caring. If you think someone seeing a vague outline of your pecker is a huge breach of privacy, you should get a Facebook.
On November 20 2010 06:56 darmousseh wrote: Seriously, i got taken aside because i had some 2 oz cologne bottle (or maybe because my last name is middle eastern) and i was notified that carrying cologne is not allowed anymore, whereas my texan white friend had 3-4 empty bullet shells he carrys around as a suvernior, but didn't get caught until we went through the metal detector in mexico.
Final Conclusion: Security in mexico is better than in the United States.
because cologne is slightly flammable (and less importantly has some unhealthy chemicals for you), while an empty bullet shell is harmless
On November 20 2010 07:47 samalie wrote: I can not believe how many of you don't give a shit. I'm in absolute shock.
Honestly...any of you in favor of this that are American citizens should revoke your citizenship immediately.
There is NEVER an acceptable excuse for the Government to infringe on your rights, or deny you freedom.
Al-Qaeda won on 9/11. Not because they managed to kill people, but because you still fucking live in fear of them...because you're willing to give away your rights & freedoms.
I'd be fucking ashamed to me an American putting up with this shit.
If it really came down to airport security staff having a reason to suspect I was carrying a malicious device, I think being x-rayed would be more favorable than getting my ass laid out on a slab and having my rectum probed.
Also, I can't see how the willingness to suffer a minor inconvenience (having your naked x-ray viewed by someone whose job is to view naked x-rays is minor, if you can rationally consider it to be an inconvenience at all) would justify the response of "should revoke your citizenship." Especially when the whole point is to prevent peoples' lives from being endangered (though I suppose I would rather live without U.S. citizenship than die and have no citizenship at all).
Oooh yeah, big victory for Al-Qaeda. One out of every couple hundred people at a terminal will have to stand in an x-ray room for a couple minutes. Big deal? The difference between being unafraid and playing it safe is the difference between complete ignorance and rationality, but interesting argument. Though I gotta say, I am an American and I am not ashamed to face the fact that my nation is looking into new ways to spot criminals as well as the fact that there is an extremely high probability I will never be subject to this type of test in my lifetime.
On November 20 2010 08:57 Dayvan wrote: Oooh yeah, big victory for Al-Qaeda. One out of every couple hundred people at a terminal will have to stand in an x-ray room for a couple minutes. Big deal?
On November 20 2010 08:45 zhurai wrote: please tell me why touching a 4 year old girl is not wrong.
Some parents bathe their kids. They strip them naked, throw them in to a tub full of hot water, and rub them down with chemicals that burn if they open their eyes.
Likewise, some other parents help their kids stay clean by preparing them nice warm baths and ensuring that they wash well enough to smell good for school and avoid any problems stemming from uncleanliness.
Just because you choose to frame security patdowns as sexual assault doesn't mean that there's any truth in what you're saying. It's much more reasonable to say that it's a completely professional and non-sexual check to make sure nobody's using a kid to bring illicit substances on to an airplane. It's also not a new thing. The TSA has been authorized to do similar searches before, they're just becoming more prevalent now that they've realized that searching random people hasn't gone well for them.
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.
"Drive a car... that way you can smuggle your drugs and alcohol in privacy." ^ so for a real life example. why would you HAVE to drive back and forth from, for example, California to Kansas _every month_. that's stupid. sorry.
also please drive a car from the US to Japan/China/Korea pleasekthanks
-----
"Plus what "privacy" are they taking away from you if they were in the small chance they ever actually do this to you specifically?"
^ please tell me why touching a 4 year old girl is not wrong.
Way to take my comment completely out of context and meaning and then use it to make a point that countered none of the points I made. If you care so much about your privacy then either do something about it or take a different route to do what you have to, stop bitching about it on the internet because then you're only saying it's only as important to you as the time it takes to kill to type up a lame response. So in essence, it's not important at all. So still I do not give a shit about the nude scan. Which btw, was the point of my post, you know the one you took comments from without addressing the main point, yah that one.
-------
I said my response to that guy, so unless he's a 4 yr old girl, 2 strikes on conjecture. Asinine to assume my point would encompass those I did not specifically address.
"Drive a car... that way you can smuggle your drugs and alcohol in privacy." ^ so for a real life example. why would you HAVE to drive back and forth from, for example, California to Kansas _every month_. that's stupid. sorry.
also please drive a car from the US to Japan/China/Korea pleasekthanks
-----
"Plus what "privacy" are they taking away from you if they were in the small chance they ever actually do this to you specifically?"
^ please tell me why touching a 4 year old girl is not wrong.
"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.
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.
"Drive a car... that way you can smuggle your drugs and alcohol in privacy." ^ so for a real life example. why would you HAVE to drive back and forth from, for example, California to Kansas _every month_. that's stupid. sorry.
also please drive a car from the US to Japan/China/Korea pleasekthanks
-----
"Plus what "privacy" are they taking away from you if they were in the small chance they ever actually do this to you specifically?"
^ please tell me why touching a 4 year old girl is not wrong.
Way to take my comment completely out of context and meaning and then use it to make a point that countered none of the points I made. If you care so much about your privacy then either do something about it or take a different route to do what you have to, stop bitching about it on the internet because then you're only saying it's only as important to you as the time it takes to kill to type up a lame response. So in essence, it's not important at all. So still I do not give a shit about the nude scan. Which btw, was the point of my post, you know the one you took comments from without addressing the main point, yah that one.
-------
I said my response to that guy, so unless he's a 4 yr old girl, 2 strikes on conjecture. Asinine to assume my point would encompass those I did not specifically address.
Edit: Plus what the guy below me wrote is what I was thinking, but he's much more intelligent than I. Fail edit
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.
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:
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?
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.
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!
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!)?
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.
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.
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.
On November 20 2010 07:47 samalie wrote: I can not believe how many of you don't give a shit. I'm in absolute shock.
Honestly...any of you in favor of this that are American citizens should revoke your citizenship immediately.
There is NEVER an acceptable excuse for the Government to infringe on your rights, or deny you freedom.
Al-Qaeda won on 9/11. Not because they managed to kill people, but because you still fucking live in fear of them...because you're willing to give away your rights & freedoms.
I'd be fucking ashamed to me an American putting up with this shit.
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.
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.
On November 20 2010 07:47 samalie wrote: I can not believe how many of you don't give a shit. I'm in absolute shock.
Honestly...any of you in favor of this that are American citizens should revoke your citizenship immediately.
There is NEVER an acceptable excuse for the Government to infringe on your rights, or deny you freedom.
Al-Qaeda won on 9/11. Not because they managed to kill people, but because you still fucking live in fear of them...because you're willing to give away your rights & freedoms.
I'd be fucking ashamed to me an American putting up with this shit.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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!
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!)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or he realizes that the only real way to protest the system is to bypass it at every turn.
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.
Because anyone who disagrees with your political stance is a weak-willed failure who lets himself be shepherded by our evil overlords. You think that spouting the "freedom" line makes anything you say above reproach, because how can someone's argument possibly be "good" if it doesn't align perfectly with your personal philosophy? Some people don't share the same views as you do, some people put up with airport security and incompetent government because they have better things to do, not because they're apathetic, and some people understand that rights also come with responsibilities.
Maybe you live in a world where every political issue is some black and white struggle between the working class and the beaurocracy, but the rest of us who live in the real world often approach problems constructively. I've seen plenty of good arguments in this thread about why the TSA is a bad organization, why these machines aren't really as good as they're made out to be, and why the people being hired to use them are incompetent, but rarely are these arguments separated from the constant crying about rights and liberties, and the equally overblown comparisons to sexual assault and child pornography.
EDIT: Speaking of ridicule... if someone deserves to get ridiculed, it's the person who answers every question by trying to ram their "civil rights" down everyone's throats and who claims that even accepting the premise is grounds for being labeled as someone who doesn't care about freedom.
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
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.
Because anyone who disagrees with your political stance is a weak-willed failure who lets himself be shepherded by our evil overlords. You think that spouting the "freedom" line makes anything you say above reproach, because how can someone's argument possibly be "good" if it doesn't align perfectly with your personal philosophy? Some people don't share the same views as you do, some people put up with airport security and incompetent government because they have better things to do, not because they're apathetic, and some people understand that rights also come with responsibilities.
Maybe you live in a world where every political issue is some black and white struggle between the working class and the beaurocracy, but the rest of us who live in the real world often approach problems constructively. I've seen plenty of good arguments in this thread about why the TSA is a bad organization, why these machines aren't really as good as they're made out to be, and why the people being hired to use them are incompetent, but rarely are these arguments separated from the constant crying about rights and liberties, and the equally overblown comparisons to sexual assault and child pornography.
EDIT: Speaking of ridicule... if someone deserves to get ridiculed, it's the person who answers every question by trying to ram their "civil rights" down everyone's throats and who claims that even accepting the premise is grounds for being labeled as someone who doesn't care about freedom.
Well, the scanners kinda violate the fourth amendment. I mean, I don't mind going through a scanner, if it actually kept me safe and it actually worked. But it doesn't. It's a waste of money, and a huge one at that.
And the terrorists will find a way around this anyway. Even if we somehow make it so that the chance of a terrorist attack involving airports is impossible, the terrorists will just resort to other methods. Trying to stop attacks like this is futile, and only hurts us economically.
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.
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.
I was not specifically referring to you. I apologize for not being clearer and for being hostile.
Airlines has no choice in the matter; they have to use TSA's guidelines even if they use private security. Market protesting won't really work unless the airlines successfully lobby Congress to revoke the TSA's authority to make administrative rules like this (I somehow doubt that it will otherwise change).
I do live in a very socialist world ^_____^
Edit: I know a lot of market fundamentalists who use black markets to avoid taxes etc, but its kinda hard to have a black market airliner, unfortunately.
Also edit, I don't think anyone disagrees action is better than talking, but part of action is organizing (requires talking)
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
On November 20 2010 14:05 GumThief wrote: at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners. .
Stopped right there dog because I am fairly sure you are not chosen for the body scanners, they are simply in some lines while metal detectors are in others. Correct me if I am wrong.
If they are profiling you for the scanner that is fucking hilarious and only goes a mile in showing how incompetent the TSA is, considering they do it to children and disabled people.
On November 20 2010 14:05 GumThief wrote: at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners. .
Stopped right there dog because I am fairly sure you are not chosen for the body scanners, they are simply in some lines while metal detectors are in others. Correct me if I am wrong.
If they are profiling you for the scanner that is fucking hilarious and only goes a mile in showing how incompetent the TSA is, considering they do it to children and disabled people.
Yeah, can't exactly speak for the TSA. I work in Canada under CATSA. I only assumed it would be regulated procedures since we are neighbours. Who knows. We have metal detectors in all lines, but a bodyscanner only in one. Those people were chosen to go there however. Makes a lot more sense than just arbitrarily throwing in the masses.
if that's the case for you guys then im sorry folks :p\
edit- and hell no to children and the disabled. Disabled people and families get their own line for their convenience Jesus we are so fucking considerate. And children are not allowed in the body scanner. Isn't that a little bit perverted to ask them to enter?
On November 20 2010 14:05 GumThief wrote: at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners. .
Stopped right there dog because I am fairly sure you are not chosen for the body scanners, they are simply in some lines while metal detectors are in others. Correct me if I am wrong.
If they are profiling you for the scanner that is fucking hilarious and only goes a mile in showing how incompetent the TSA is, considering they do it to children and disabled people.
Yeah, can't exactly speak for the TSA. I work in Canada under CATSA. I only assumed it would be regulated procedures since we are neighbours. Who knows. We have metal detectors in all lines, but a bodyscanner only in one. Those people were chosen to go there however. Makes a lot more sense than just arbitrarily throwing in the masses.
if that's the case for you guys then im sorry folks :p
Oh, I gotcha. I was confused because you sounded like you worked for airport security and I was fairly sure our security was much more retarded than you made it sound! .
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
Yes, I agree that it should be for sure safe on airplanes. But the scanners apparently aren't the way to go to accomplish that.
As for C, I have no problem getting patted down. It's happened to me many times at sporting events. And um, did I act like people wanted to touch my penis?
And as for the guy in the video, I never believed it anyway.
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
Yes, I agree that it should be for sure safe on airplanes. But the scanners apparently aren't the way to go to accomplish that.
As for C, I have no problem getting patted down. It's happened to me many times at sporting events. And um, did I act like people wanted to touch my penis?
And as for the guy in the video, I never believed it anyway.
no no. earlier in the thread i recall people calling patdowns "groping," or how it was inappropriate the way they were touched. Not to mention people taking that video at face value. It was just kind of.. extremely annoying seeing such ignorance. Like all of these arguments of liberties and being "free" are kind of moot when nothing THAT intrusive is happening anyways.. :\
the only argument i have against these advanced body-searches in the states, is that the same results can be achieved with a metal detector and a mandatory swab of the hands and/or bags with an explosive detection trace. No gun or knife? CHeck. Haven't touched explosive chemicals in the last week or so? Check. peace
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
Yes, I agree that it should be for sure safe on airplanes. But the scanners apparently aren't the way to go to accomplish that.
As for C, I have no problem getting patted down. It's happened to me many times at sporting events. And um, did I act like people wanted to touch my penis?
And as for the guy in the video, I never believed it anyway.
no no. earlier in the thread i recall people calling patdowns "groping," or how it was inappropriate the way they were touched. Not to mention people taking that video at face value. It was just kind of.. extremely annoying seeing such ignorance. Like all of these arguments of liberties and being "free" are kind of moot when nothing THAT intrusive is happening anyways.. :\
the only argument i have against these advanced body-searches in the states, is that the same results can be achieved with a metal detector and a mandatory swab of the hands and/or bags with an explosive detection trace. No gun or knife? CHeck. Haven't touched explosive chemicals in the last week or so? Check. peace
Yeah. I don't get the intrusion thing. I guess some people are just more sensitive than I am.
On November 20 2010 12:55 Dayvan wrote: Okay Kriglose,
What are you, 13?
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
Clarifying someone else's argument? More like you posted an argument without thinking about it or understanding anything about the topic at hand, so I took the time to call you out on it. The rest was just explaining the situation to you since you obviously do not know anything about it. Your arguments made no sense because they don't apply at all to this situation. You were wrong, I showed how you were wrong, get over it. If you were reading a topic to learn, then learn instead of trying to make arguments when you understand nothing about the situation. The entire point you're trying to make not only addresses nothing in the discussion, it's not even applicable at all to the topic at hand.
I've been told to refrain from personal attacks, but I'll just quickly point out the amusing irony of someone saying they "don't mind being corrected" then proceeding to accuse the other person of being an asshole in a 4 paragraph charged rant.
Also, you'd sooner support that idea than the shit I've suggested? What shit have I suggested, exactly? Please quote what I have "suggested".
Because anyone who disagrees with your political stance is a weak-willed failure who lets himself be shepherded by our evil overlords. You think that spouting the "freedom" line makes anything you say above reproach, because how can someone's argument possibly be "good" if it doesn't align perfectly with your personal philosophy? Some people don't share the same views as you do, some people put up with airport security and incompetent government because they have better things to do, not because they're apathetic, and some people understand that rights also come with responsibilities.
Maybe you live in a world where every political issue is some black and white struggle between the working class and the beaurocracy, but the rest of us who live in the real world often approach problems constructively. I've seen plenty of good arguments in this thread about why the TSA is a bad organization, why these machines aren't really as good as they're made out to be, and why the people being hired to use them are incompetent, but rarely are these arguments separated from the constant crying about rights and liberties, and the equally overblown comparisons to sexual assault and child pornography.
EDIT: Speaking of ridicule... if someone deserves to get ridiculed, it's the person who answers every question by trying to ram their "civil rights" down everyone's throats and who claims that even accepting the premise is grounds for being labeled as someone who doesn't care about freedom.
Okay so let me just get this straight here, I'm trying to grasp what you're saying. So you're basically saying since you disagree with someone's political stance, that makes the facts that they present invalid?
Krigdraw your posts Are hilarious. You have some valid points. Those scanners are def still a work in progress and remain to be seen if they are integral to our security. But hey, good thing you can flat out say no thanks! You come across a little uppity in your posts it is hard to take It serious at times. Nevertheless still a well thought post a couple pages back.
Kriglose was a joke. Sorry to see that it was lost.
"Clarifying someone else's argument? More like you posted an argument without thinking about it or understanding anything about the topic at hand, so I took the time to call you out on it."
You still sound like you haven't read it yet, but okay, I can't make you understand it.
"I've been told to refrain from personal attacks, but I'll just quickly point out the amusing irony of someone saying they "don't mind being corrected" then proceeding to accuse the other person of being an asshole in a 4 paragraph charged rant."
Yes, the irony is that you still don't understand its possible to both informed AND an asshole at the same time. Like I said, I have no problem learning what its really about from you (though I have no intention of considering anything you've said as a fact until I've heard it from a reliable source) but like most people I don't really care to take any shit.
"Also, you'd sooner support that idea than the shit I've suggested? What shit have I suggested, exactly? Please quote what I have "suggested"."
What I was referencing was this "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."
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
This has got to be the best reply i have seen in this thread.
in response to A) Yes its true not all lanes have scanners, there isn't enough money or room for them to be at all lanes. B) i would have to disagree with. There really isn't much profiling, Cat X airports have such a high throughput there isn't time to do it to a degree. My Airport has between 30,000-60,000 people going through security in a single day. C) Pat downs are so over dramatic in the media. It's not like they have just started them. People with a defibrillator or pace maker don't go through a metal detector so they have been getting pat downs for ever. There hasn't been an issue with them at all. It's all the cry babies of today who never had to go through it. D) It's kind of funny how many gun owners "forget" they had one in their bag. Can't use profiling here, every race, age group and sex is guilty here.
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
This has got to be the best reply i have seen in this thread.
in response to A) Yes its true not all lanes have scanners, there isn't enough money or room for them to be at all lanes. B) i would have to disagree with. There really isn't much profiling, Cat X airports have such a high throughput there isn't time to do it to a degree. My Airport has between 30,000-60,000 people going through security in a single day. C) Pat downs are so over dramatic in the media. It's not like they have just started them. People with a defibrillator or pace maker don't go through a metal detector so they have been getting pat downs for ever. There hasn't been an issue with them at all. It's all the cry babies of today who never had to go through it. D) It's kind of funny how many gun owners "forget" they had one in their bag. Can't use profiling here, every race, age group and sex is guilty here.
They haven't been doing the patdowns forever because the patdowns that people are complaining about are under some "new guideliens" that are more invasive. There have been a lot of reports recently of TSA agents touching genitals or even putting their hands down waistbands. The head of the TSA just admitted they are more invasive than fliers are used to so I doubt these procedures have been going on forever.
The Freedon Fondle is the new "enchanced" pat down technique enacted by the TSA end of October/beginning of November.
The CATSA in Canada still uses the "normal" patdown, which I've been subjected to numerous times. Its quick and non-concerning to me overall. They touch you, perhaps make quick contact with more...sensitive...areas with the back of a hand, done.
The Freedon Fondle was all but designed to get people to use the stupid nudie scanner...why have your shit molested when you can just go through this virtual strip search. But, as far as I'm concerned, BOTH are a complete violation of our civil rights. This is, constitutionally, "Unreasonable Search".
I want safe air travel. I want security. But I am not willing to trade my rights for it. The Israel system...yes, armed guards everywhere questioning your shit...by people hella trained to notice if you're acting in any way out of the ordinary. It can be extremely uncomfortable going through Israeli checkpoints...but their system is exceptionally fast, non-invasive and bottom line...it works. One handgun has made it through security, once. No plane leaving Tel Aviv has ever been involved in any act of terrorism. And nobody has to go through humiliating and unreasonable searches without probable cause.
I can agree with that. Talking to my father, and I'd have to agree, our culture is way too different. Imagine the headlines if they decided to switch over to Israeli style security. People would probably not be to keen about armed guards interrogating them several times along the way. Personally though I think it's worth the discussion if they are serious about airport security.
Another point is that I don't think anybody would be comfortable in giving the TSA, or CATSA for that matter, the authority to carry weapons and be in charge of any type of intelligence. If they were to make the switch, it would probably have to be handed over to the army or rCMP. A high federal police force would be up to that job-- not the TS mo fucking A.
A longtime Charlotte, N.C., flight attendant and cancer survivor told a local television station that she was forced to show her prosthetic breast during a pat-down.
Cathy Bossi, who works for U.S. Airways, said she received the pat-down after declining to do the full-body scan because of radiation concerns.
The TSA screener "put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?' " Bossi told the station. "And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that.' "
Bossi said she removed the prosthetic from her bra. She did not take the name of the agent, she said, "because it was just so horrific of an experience, I couldn't believe someone had done that to me. I'm a flight attendant. I was just trying to get to work."
For Americans who wear prosthetics — either because they are cancer survivors or have lost a limb — or who have undergone hip replacements or have a pacemaker, the humiliation of the TSA's new security procedures — choosing between a body scan or body search — is even worse.
Musa Mayer has worn a breast prosthesis for 21 years since her mastectomy and is used to the alarms it sets off at airport security. But nothing prepared her for the "invasive and embarrassing" experience of being patted down, poked and examined recently while passing through airport security at Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C.
"I asked the supervisor if she realized that there are 3 million women who have had breast cancer in the U.S., many of whom wear breast prostheses. Will each of us now have to undergo this humiliating, time-consuming routine every time we pass through one of these new body scanners?" she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com.
'I was so humiliated' Marlene McCarthy of Rhode Island said she went through the body scanner and was told by a TSA agent to step aside. In "full view of everyone," McCarthy said in an e-mail, the agent "immediately put the back of her hand on my right side chest and I explained I wore a prosthesis.
"Then, she put her full hands ... one on top and one on the bottom of my 'breast' and moved the prosthesis left, right, up, down and said 'OK.' I was so humiliated.
"I went to the desk area and complained," McCarthy wrote. "The woman there was very nice and I asked her if the training included an understanding of how prosthetics are captured on the scanner and told her the pat-down is embarrassing. She said, 'We have never even had that discussion and I do the training for the TSA employees here, following the standard manual provided.' She said she will bring it up at their next meeting."
If she has to go through the scanner again, McCarthy said, "I am determined to put the prosthesis in the gray bucket," provided to travelers at the security check-ins for items such as jewelry.
"Let the TSA scanners be embarrassed .... not me anymore!" she wrote.
Sharon Kiss, 66, has a pacemaker, but also has to fly often for her work.
"During a recent enhanced pat-down, a screener cupped my breasts and felt my genitals," she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com "To 'clear my waistband' she put her hands down my pants and groped for the waistband of my underwear.
"I expressed humiliation and was told 'You have the choice not to fly.' "
The remark infuriated Kiss, who lives in Mendocino, Calif. "Extrapolate this to we should not provide curb cuts and ramps for people confined to wheelchairs because they can choose to stay home ... This a violation of civil rights. And because I have a disability, I should not be subjected to what is government-sanctioned sexual assault in order to board a plane."
TSA: Pilots to be exempt from some airport security checks
No planned changes to security So far, the government is not letting up on the enhanced screening program. TSA administrator John Pistole said this week at a Congressional hearing on the matter that "reasonable people can disagree" on how to properly balance safety at the nation's airports, but that the new security measures are necessary because of intelligence on latest attack methods that might be used by terrorists.
Gail Mengel, of Blue Springs, Mo., is used to being patted down; she had a hip replacement five years ago.
"I admit that I was relieved when I flew last week and was able to spend a few seconds in front of the X-ray screen in Seattle and Denver," she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com. "I have heard medical experts say the level of radiation will not hurt us. And frankly I was happy to realize I won't have my body touched, patted and rubbed anymore.
"Unfortunately last weekend, I arrived at the New Orleans airport and learned that airport staff (was) still being trained in using the X-ray machine. Because my hip replacement sets off the security buzzer, I was faced with the new regulations."
While she is "used to" being patted down, "this experience was certainly much more personal, uncomfortable and embarrassing," she said. "Every part of my body was touched. I do not want to be harmed by radiation, but the experience was painless and quick compared to what I have faced over the last five years. I support security measures but I also hope we can be assured of safe procedures."
One man, from Nashville, wrote in an e-mail that "as a handicapped person, I am sick and tired of being 'raped' at the security line. I lose my crutches and leg orthotics to be 'nuked' by the X-ray machine. Then manhandled by the pat-down, followed by chemical swabbing for 'possible explosives.' ...Enough is enough."
Said Mayer, the longtime breast cancer survivor: "I am outraged that I will now be forced to show my prosthesis to strangers, remove it and put in the X-ray bin for screening, or not to wear it at all whenever I fly. To me, this seems unfairly discriminatory and embarrassing for me, and for all breast cancer survivors."
On November 20 2010 16:29 Dayvan wrote: Yes, the irony is that you still don't understand its possible to both informed AND an asshole at the same time. Like I said, I have no problem learning what its really about from you (though I have no intention of considering anything you've said as a fact until I've heard it from a reliable source) but like most people I don't really care to take any shit.
There are links all over this thread. Links to how they don't work, links to the suggested medical drawbacks, hell you can just go look up the TSA on wikipedia, there's a whole section dedicated to detailing their incompetence. I have posted some of them myself. If you can't be bothered to read the thread, and "like most people" you really don't give a shit, then why are you posting? Stop being mad because someone corrected you, do what you came here to do and learn silently.
What I was referencing was this "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."
Those were not suggestions. They were comparisons to show the comparative value of the money that is being wholly wasted on these machines. And you wouldn't be in favor of any one of them? Okay bro.
There is no cause. There is no justification, other than "I want to travel in an airplane".
It is unconstitutional, therefore illegal, and everyone should be outraged.
Airports are privately owned by corporations, and subject to the regulations of private property, not public property. (Most) Airport security personnel are not law enforcement, but private security personnel.
There is no cause. There is no justification, other than "I want to travel in an airplane".
It is unconstitutional, therefore illegal, and everyone should be outraged.
Airports are privately owned by corporations, and subject to the regulations of private property, not public property. (Most) Airport security personnel are not law enforcement, but private security personnel.
So no, it isn't unconstitutional.
The TSA is a Federal Government entity, conducting mandatory illegal searches on private property.
"Would bother you more then being stripped search, taking off all your cloths in front of random strangers except your panties and bra." The fact is, you shouldn't have to submit to either one. A lot of the people posting in this thread are definitely the submissive types, which seems to be the majority in America (and the reason they get away with treating us like fucking cattle). You know what? I don't want the 40 year old woman telling my 12 year old daughter that she has to either get naked pictures taken of her or be strip searched and then molested, I call that pedophilia.
There is no cause. There is no justification, other than "I want to travel in an airplane".
It is unconstitutional, therefore illegal, and everyone should be outraged.
Airports are privately owned by corporations, and subject to the regulations of private property, not public property. (Most) Airport security personnel are not law enforcement, but private security personnel.
So no, it isn't unconstitutional.
Ye it is. TSA is public. And Flying is a necessity for many people Just like owning a car. We aren't second class citizens. We don't want this bullshit. And we're not going to have it or we are going to raise fucking hell.
On November 21 2010 03:53 SichuanPanda wrote: I'm gonna request my full-body grope come from the female security guards, don't want a guy feeling up my junk.
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
Copout after pathetic copout.
Israeli style security. How would submachine guns and questions prevent any sort of hidden safety threat? Why is this even being mentioned?
A) A child molester only molests 10-15% of the kids on your street. Is this acceptable? Is it acceptable if he claims it's for national security? What about if it's just to keep school buses safe? We are talking about 10-ton 40-mph death machines zooming past our houses at speeds which could destroy walls. Millions of children per day are using these school buses. How safe does it need to be? B) Irrelevant. C) How is a pat-down effective if the genital area is ignored? If the trained standard is to ignore the genital area, how are the cases in which it is not ignored explained? D) Irrelevant. Everyone is aware of weapons and drugs at airports.
The TSA has been hit with a number of lawsuits as the revolt against Big Sis, naked body scanners, and invasive groping measures explodes, with one case involving a woman who had her blouse pulled down in full public view by TSA goons who then proceeded to laugh and joke about her exposed breasts.
Nationwide outrage against the TSA is not only bringing to light new cases of airport abuse, it’s throwing fresh attention on previous incidents that have been going on for years.One of the most disturbing, which is subject to an ongoing lawsuit, involved a 21-year-old college student from Amarillo Texas. The woman was passing through security at Corpus Christi airport on May 29 2008 when she was subjected to “extended search procedures” by the TSA.
“As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs’ breasts to everyone in the area,” the lawsuit said. “As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated.”
TSA workers continued to laugh and joke about the incident “for an extended period of time,” leaving the woman distraught and needing to be consoled. After the woman re-entered the boarding area, TSA workers continued to humiliate her over the incident.
“One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that ‘he would just have to watch the video,’” the suit said.
The woman filed an administrative claim against the TSA but was forced to launch a full lawsuit after the agency failed to respond.
The incident bears similarities to a 2002 case involving a pregnant woman who had her breasts exposed by TSA agents in public. Her husband was thrown in the airport jail for complaining about the treatment of his wife.
TSA Hit With Lawsuits As Revolt Explodes
Another lawsuit against the TSA involves Ron Corbett, a businessman and frequent traveler who is so infuriated by the plethora of cases where TSA workers have sexually groped passengers, squeezing breasts and genitals, that he has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami requesting an injunction against the TSA to prevent them from touching private areas without reasonable suspicion.
Corbett writes about his lawsuit on a blog entitled TSA Out Of Our Pants.
“Having grown up in New York and personally seeing the smoke rise from the towers that morning in 2001, I know the threat of terrorism is real, and I know we must defend ourselves. This does not mean that the Constitution should be ignored, and indeed, the TSA has plenty of alternative screening procedures that are less invasive. Besides the privacy issue, there have been health issues raised as to the radiation produced by the imaging devices, as well as efficacy issues, with no good studies having been done to show that this imagery makes us any safer,” writes Corbett.
Yet another lawsuit involves The Rutherford Institute, which is suing the feds on behalf of two pilots over the use of full body scanners.
“Those pilots recently refused to go through a controversial whole body imaging scanner, and also refused the alternative, the TSA’s new, more invasive pat downs,” reports CBS 6.
The lawsuit, which personally names both TSA chief John Pistole and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, argues that the scanners violate the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment.
The TSA could also be hit with a fourth lawsuit if they pursue an $11,000 claim against John Tyner, otherwise known as “don’t touch my junk guy”. Speaking on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Tyner insisted he would file a counter lawsuit if the TSA continued to pursue him over his refusal to submit to an airport groping.
Another victim, radio host Owen JJ Stone, who had a TSA agent put his hand inside his pants and touch his backside and genitalia, has not indicated he will pursue charges, but has vowed instead to use his treatment as an example of why the TSA needs to be stopped in its tracks or abolished altogether.
Pistole faces another grilling from lawmakers today on Capitol Hill at a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Privacy group EPIC files lawsuit against Dept. Homeland Security to block use of scanners.
Privacy watchdog Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) sued the Department of Homeland Security this week, asking a federal judge to make the Transportation Security Authority (TSA) stop using body scanners in airports across the United States. EPIC claims that the scanners violate a handful of federal laws, including the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Joining TSA as petitioners in the lawsuit are security guru Bruce Schneier, privacy activist Chip Pitts, and Nadhira Al-Khalili, legal counsel for the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations.
Federal lawmakers have also expressed concern about the scanning process, although their complaints center on safety, not privacy. Senators Collins (R-ME), Burr (R-NC), and Coburn (R-OK) signed a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano noting that concerns about passenger safety "remain unanswered."
In its opening brief, EPIC argues that TSA violated these laws by unilaterally implementing "the most sweeping, the most invasive, and the most unaccountable suspicionless search of American travelers in history." According to EPIC, TSA should not have made such a drastic change to screening procedures for airline passengers without publishing the change in advance and providing the public an opportunity to express its views.
Passengers object to TSA screening practices
Countless travelers have endured the indignity of TSA's full-body scans and pat-downs. In a full-body scan, passengers step through a high resolution backscatter x-ray device which projects an image of their naked bodies to a TSA screener in another location. TSA argues that passenger privacy is protected because the screener who sees the image of the passenger's naked body does not see the passenger in the flesh and does not know the identity of the passenger being screened. In a pat-down search, a TSA screener touches the passenger's body parts through her clothing in an effort to detect any weapons the passenger may have hidden on the body.
Through the Freedom of Information Act, EPIC obtained copies of passenger complaints about the procedure. In one complaint, a rape victim described her humiliation as a male TSA agent touched her body after she declined the full body scan. In another complaint, the father of an eight-year-old boy declared that he would never allow his son to fly because the scanner images amount to child pornography.
California software engineer John Tyner recently declined a body scan at San Diego International Airport and decided not to continue with screening after TSA officials "patted down" his inner thighs. Tyner, who blogs under the pen name Johnny Edge, posted a cell phone video of the incident online. Like a burning ember in dry grass, Tyner's anecdote sparked a firestorm of consumer complaints and public outrage about TSA's invasive screening practices.
Agency law
EPIC's lawsuit may force TSA to temporarily suspend the scans, but it is unlikely to have a lasting effect on the screening process. Before federal agencies like TSA implement substantive changes in policy, they are required to publish the proposed change in the Federal Register and allow a period for the public to comment on or object to the proposed rule. In some cases, formal public hearings must be held before a new rule is implemented. The EPIC petition alleges that TSA bypassed the notice-and-comment process, making the body-scanning rules illegal and unenforceable. If the lawsuit succeeds, TSA could overcome some of the issues raised by EPIC by publishing the rule for notice and comment and then re-implementing body scans.
TSA has responded to the lawsuit by calling out a CBS poll finding that four out of five passengers support the use of body-scanning technology because passengers want assurance that no one on their plane is carrying a weapon. Federal judges have long recognized national security as a public need that supersedes personal privacy rights.
Until the federal court takes action on the lawsuit, TSA will continue to use existing screening tools, including body scans and pat-downs.
But, hey, at least the TSA has a sense of humor, right?
The TSA has been hit with a number of lawsuits as the revolt against Big Sis, naked body scanners, and invasive groping measures explodes, with one case involving a woman who had her blouse pulled down in full public view by TSA goons who then proceeded to laugh and joke about her exposed breasts.
Nationwide outrage against the TSA is not only bringing to light new cases of airport abuse, it’s throwing fresh attention on previous incidents that have been going on for years.One of the most disturbing, which is subject to an ongoing lawsuit, involved a 21-year-old college student from Amarillo Texas. The woman was passing through security at Corpus Christi airport on May 29 2008 when she was subjected to “extended search procedures” by the TSA.
“As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs’ breasts to everyone in the area,” the lawsuit said. “As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated.”
TSA workers continued to laugh and joke about the incident “for an extended period of time,” leaving the woman distraught and needing to be consoled. After the woman re-entered the boarding area, TSA workers continued to humiliate her over the incident.
“One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that ‘he would just have to watch the video,’” the suit said.
The woman filed an administrative claim against the TSA but was forced to launch a full lawsuit after the agency failed to respond.
The incident bears similarities to a 2002 case involving a pregnant woman who had her breasts exposed by TSA agents in public. Her husband was thrown in the airport jail for complaining about the treatment of his wife.
TSA Hit With Lawsuits As Revolt Explodes
Another lawsuit against the TSA involves Ron Corbett, a businessman and frequent traveler who is so infuriated by the plethora of cases where TSA workers have sexually groped passengers, squeezing breasts and genitals, that he has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami requesting an injunction against the TSA to prevent them from touching private areas without reasonable suspicion.
Corbett writes about his lawsuit on a blog entitled TSA Out Of Our Pants.
“Having grown up in New York and personally seeing the smoke rise from the towers that morning in 2001, I know the threat of terrorism is real, and I know we must defend ourselves. This does not mean that the Constitution should be ignored, and indeed, the TSA has plenty of alternative screening procedures that are less invasive. Besides the privacy issue, there have been health issues raised as to the radiation produced by the imaging devices, as well as efficacy issues, with no good studies having been done to show that this imagery makes us any safer,” writes Corbett.
Yet another lawsuit involves The Rutherford Institute, which is suing the feds on behalf of two pilots over the use of full body scanners.
“Those pilots recently refused to go through a controversial whole body imaging scanner, and also refused the alternative, the TSA’s new, more invasive pat downs,” reports CBS 6.
The lawsuit, which personally names both TSA chief John Pistole and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, argues that the scanners violate the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment.
The TSA could also be hit with a fourth lawsuit if they pursue an $11,000 claim against John Tyner, otherwise known as “don’t touch my junk guy”. Speaking on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Tyner insisted he would file a counter lawsuit if the TSA continued to pursue him over his refusal to submit to an airport groping.
Another victim, radio host Owen JJ Stone, who had a TSA agent put his hand inside his pants and touch his backside and genitalia, has not indicated he will pursue charges, but has vowed instead to use his treatment as an example of why the TSA needs to be stopped in its tracks or abolished altogether.
Pistole faces another grilling from lawmakers today on Capitol Hill at a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Privacy group EPIC files lawsuit against Dept. Homeland Security to block use of scanners.
Privacy watchdog Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) sued the Department of Homeland Security this week, asking a federal judge to make the Transportation Security Authority (TSA) stop using body scanners in airports across the United States. EPIC claims that the scanners violate a handful of federal laws, including the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Joining TSA as petitioners in the lawsuit are security guru Bruce Schneier, privacy activist Chip Pitts, and Nadhira Al-Khalili, legal counsel for the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations.
Federal lawmakers have also expressed concern about the scanning process, although their complaints center on safety, not privacy. Senators Collins (R-ME), Burr (R-NC), and Coburn (R-OK) signed a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano noting that concerns about passenger safety "remain unanswered."
In its opening brief, EPIC argues that TSA violated these laws by unilaterally implementing "the most sweeping, the most invasive, and the most unaccountable suspicionless search of American travelers in history." According to EPIC, TSA should not have made such a drastic change to screening procedures for airline passengers without publishing the change in advance and providing the public an opportunity to express its views.
Passengers object to TSA screening practices
Countless travelers have endured the indignity of TSA's full-body scans and pat-downs. In a full-body scan, passengers step through a high resolution backscatter x-ray device which projects an image of their naked bodies to a TSA screener in another location. TSA argues that passenger privacy is protected because the screener who sees the image of the passenger's naked body does not see the passenger in the flesh and does not know the identity of the passenger being screened. In a pat-down search, a TSA screener touches the passenger's body parts through her clothing in an effort to detect any weapons the passenger may have hidden on the body.
Through the Freedom of Information Act, EPIC obtained copies of passenger complaints about the procedure. In one complaint, a rape victim described her humiliation as a male TSA agent touched her body after she declined the full body scan. In another complaint, the father of an eight-year-old boy declared that he would never allow his son to fly because the scanner images amount to child pornography.
California software engineer John Tyner recently declined a body scan at San Diego International Airport and decided not to continue with screening after TSA officials "patted down" his inner thighs. Tyner, who blogs under the pen name Johnny Edge, posted a cell phone video of the incident online. Like a burning ember in dry grass, Tyner's anecdote sparked a firestorm of consumer complaints and public outrage about TSA's invasive screening practices.
Agency law
EPIC's lawsuit may force TSA to temporarily suspend the scans, but it is unlikely to have a lasting effect on the screening process. Before federal agencies like TSA implement substantive changes in policy, they are required to publish the proposed change in the Federal Register and allow a period for the public to comment on or object to the proposed rule. In some cases, formal public hearings must be held before a new rule is implemented. The EPIC petition alleges that TSA bypassed the notice-and-comment process, making the body-scanning rules illegal and unenforceable. If the lawsuit succeeds, TSA could overcome some of the issues raised by EPIC by publishing the rule for notice and comment and then re-implementing body scans.
TSA has responded to the lawsuit by calling out a CBS poll finding that four out of five passengers support the use of body-scanning technology because passengers want assurance that no one on their plane is carrying a weapon. Federal judges have long recognized national security as a public need that supersedes personal privacy rights.
Until the federal court takes action on the lawsuit, TSA will continue to use existing screening tools, including body scans and pat-downs.
But, hey, at least the TSA has a sense of humor, right?
I get why your angry, but what do you propose in place of this? We either hire better TSA personnel, which costs money, which is going to come from ticket prices or taxes, or we laxen security to pre 9/11 standards.
--------------------------------
A) A child molester only molests 10-15% of the kids on your street. Is this acceptable? Is it acceptable if he claims it's for national security? What about if it's just to keep school buses safe? We are talking about 10-ton 40-mph death machines zooming past our houses at speeds which could destroy walls. Millions of children per day are using these school buses. How safe does it need to be?
roflul. srsly bro? Gumlul put it nicely.
I don't even know how to respond to such a low quality, poorly thought out post full of bullshit and sensationalized garbage. Have a nice day.
---------------------------
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.
Yes revolutionary comrade, we must break free from the shackles of our oppressors and secure a new republic, one devoid of the repressive bonds of embarrassing searches in public airports for the good of the proletariat.
Seriously find a cold bucket of water to douse your head in, might be good for your world view.
How many of you actually fly frequently? I've flown four times in last year international, I'm of Asian ethnicity, and every time coming back to the states I've been patted down. It isn't a big fucking deal. Get some fucking perspective kid. How about you channel your angst towards some actual injustice in the states, like the state of our prisons, our immigration policies, our urban slums, attack recent developments on censorship of the internet and the abandonment of net neutrality (and our even bigger injustices towards other countries), instead of focusing all your revolutionary anger on the fear of having your penis touched during a patdown in airports ... comrade.
It's absolutely hilarious how much you guys lack any sort of perspective.
It's a shame there isn't anyone actually qualified as a lawyer to talk here. There are so many ridiculous claims from both sides with absolutely no justification. In many cases, there are just absurd comparisons that are not appropriate nor applicable and used solely for incendiary purposes.
How many of you actually fly frequently? I've flown four times in last year international, I'm of Asian ethnicity, and every time coming back to the states I've been patted down. It isn't a big fucking deal. Get some fucking perspective kid. How about you channel your angst towards some actual injustice in the states, like the state of our prisons, our immigration policies, our urban slums, attack recent developments on censorship of the internet and the abandonment of net neutrality (and our even bigger injustices towards other countries), instead of focusing all your revolutionary anger on the fear of having your penis touched during a patdown in airports ... comrade.
It's absolutely hilarious how much you guys lack any sort of perspective.
You sound mad lulz
I was referring to a comment, which applied generally, not specifically, is pretty sad to hear. If you want to apply it specifically to airlines and insult people for not taking on a bigger issue (which is the same issue applied generally) that is your argument, not mine.
How many of you actually fly frequently? I've flown four times in last year international, I'm of Asian ethnicity, and every time coming back to the states I've been patted down. It isn't a big fucking deal. Get some fucking perspective kid. How about you channel your angst towards some actual injustice in the states, like the state of our prisons, our immigration policies, our urban slums, attack recent developments on censorship of the internet and the abandonment of net neutrality (and our even bigger injustices towards other countries), instead of focusing all your revolutionary anger on the fear of having your penis touched during a patdown in airports ... comrade.
It's absolutely hilarious how much you guys lack any sort of perspective.
You sound mad lulz
I was referring to a comment, which applied generally, not specifically, is pretty sad to hear. If you want to apply it specifically to airlines and insult people for not taking on a bigger issue (which is the same issue applied generally) that is your argument, not mine.
So in other words you were referring to a comment which you intentionally took out of context to make it sound really pathetic in lieu of any actual point, and you really are a petty little kid fixated with convenience.
KK BRAHE
Seriously, i got taken aside because i had some 2 oz cologne bottle (or maybe because my last name is middle eastern) and i was notified that carrying cologne is not allowed anymore, whereas my texan white friend had 3-4 empty bullet shells he carrys around as a suvernior, but didn't get caught until we went through the metal detector in mexico.
Final Conclusion: Security in mexico is better than in the United States.
I'd assume, by the way this story is told (First U.S. security, then Mexican security), that you were departing for mexico. Well ofc. Its traffic inbound for the U.S. which security is generally fixated towards.
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
So, according to:
A) Only certain people are chosen to suffer this unconstitutional humiliation? How, may I ask, is that protecting homeland security when, according to your statistics, 85-90% of John Q Public walks right past the guards?
B) I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Big Brother is - and has been for years - watching us. And the citizens of the United States (too many of them) follow blindly believing whatever the government brainwashes them to believe.
C) By "nobody" do you mean that sicko who can't get a job as a law enforcement officer so, they get hired by private security companies?
D) We know that a granny's nail file is considered a weapon, oh and the knife that grandpa uses to whittle away at a piece of wood is a deadly weapon as well.
*sighs* I'm frightened at what is going on, but more frightened that people would even try to rationalize it. Of course your history books won't tell you the god-awful truths, so talk to someone's grandparents who survived the Holocaust and then come back and post "hey, it's nothing."
*sighs* I'm frightened at what is going on, but more frightened that people would even try to rationalize it. Of course your history books won't tell you the god-awful truths, so talk to someone's grandparents who survived the Holocaust and then come back and post "hey, it's nothing."
I can't believe you'd be so petty as to demean the atrocity of the holocaust by comparing it to full body xrays in airports.
We all know your looking to vindicate your dull lives in some middle class suburbia by making up fantastical stories of oppression and repression, to impose some narrative onto an otherwise average life, through stories of vast conspiracy and exploitation.
You don't know what oppression means. I doubt you even know what hunger means.
So in other words you were referring to a comment which you intentionally took out of context to make it sound really pathetic, and you really are a petty little kid fixated with convenience.
KK BRAH
It was taken out of context. It was quoted and replied to in a general sense with a criticism of the principle. I stopped talking about specifics a long time ago. You brought up specifics in conjunction with more important issues to minimize a general application, which is silly.
Why taking things out of context is always thought of negatively is strange, considering you need to be able to isolate ideas in order to have a civilized conversation.
If you think that the principle of accepting a system simply because it exists is really pathetic when applied generally, then we agree. If not, we disagree.
So in other words you were referring to a comment which you intentionally took out of context to make it sound really pathetic, and you really are a petty little kid fixated with convenience.
KK BRAH
It was taken out of context. It was quoted and replied to in a general sense with a criticism of the principle. I stopped talking about specifics a long time ago. You brought up specifics in conjunction with more important issues to minimize a general application, which is silly.
Why taking things out of context is always thought of negatively is strange, considering you need to be able to isolate ideas in order to have a civilized conversation.
If you think that the principle of accepting a system simply because it exists is really pathetic when applied generally, then we agree. If not, we disagree.
What we disagree with aren't the principal, but the application. Assuming we could change everything simply by wishing it, then perhaps your view would hold truer. But that isn't how the world works. We have to choose which hills to die on, so to speak, and by comparing airport security in the U.S. to say, the holocaust, well, its nothing short of petty. Every change comes with sacrifice. As I said, what will you sacrifice? The answer is nothing. You aren't willing to sacrifice national security, and you aren't willing to pay 100$ more on travel feels (You, as in, as a collective of consumers, not just you romantic ), so stop bitching without direction or aim, but rather, just to bitch, because it feels good, it feels good to pretend this is a big conspiracy against the public.
The only intelligent thing the TSA has done since 9/11 is put a locked door and gun in the cockpit. Fucking simple and effective. A single wacko carries plastic explosive in his pants, and now we need to take nude pictures of 300 million people. 10x3 ounce containers of liquid are OK, but 1x4 container is banned.
If a few, determined people put a little bit of thought into it, they could easily take down an airplane. Obviously the same goes for any other form of mass transportation. Bus, train, metro - all have ZERO security, but no attacks.
*sighs* I'm frightened at what is going on, but more frightened that people would even try to rationalize it. Of course your history books won't tell you the god-awful truths, so talk to someone's grandparents who survived the Holocaust and then come back and post "hey, it's nothing."
I can't believe you'd be so petty as to demean the atrocity of the holocaust by comparing it to full body xrays in airports.
We all know your looking to vindicate your dull lives in some middle class suburbia by making up fantastical stories of oppression and repression, to impose some narrative onto an otherwise average life, through stories of vast conspiracy and exploitation.
You don't know what oppression means. I doubt you even know what hunger means.
Limitation of one's rights is something to be wary of, if not afraid, no matter the scale. Why does this bother you so much that you attempt to ridicule the guy?
Any unjustified limitation of freedom would be analogous to holocaust; why not? You think holocaust happened overnight? Freedoms were taken away bit by bit during the nazi regime, and it was full blown barbarism when the war broke out.
If your life is meaningless and not in need of a narrative, feel free to get lost in oblivion with your unvoiced opinions and condescending rhetoric but don't ridicule someone who expresses their own opinion. This is a subtle form of oppression as well.
Inb4 'you dont know what oppression means, blabla' lol
TSA agents ignore bladder-cancer survivor's repeated warnings about his condition, grope him, break his urine bag, leave him covered in piss and then act like nothing happened.
*sighs* I'm frightened at what is going on, but more frightened that people would even try to rationalize it. Of course your history books won't tell you the god-awful truths, so talk to someone's grandparents who survived the Holocaust and then come back and post "hey, it's nothing."
I can't believe you'd be so petty as to demean the atrocity of the holocaust by comparing it to full body xrays in airports.
We all know your looking to vindicate your dull lives in some middle class suburbia by making up fantastical stories of oppression and repression, to impose some narrative onto an otherwise average life, through stories of vast conspiracy and exploitation.
You don't know what oppression means. I doubt you even know what hunger means.
GJ reading only the last paragraph that was an aside, instead of all the good points arkansassy made...
looks like you just picked on that part of the post and ignored everything else lofl. You do realize that airports have done this bullshit searching and seizure stuff for years now right? More or less randomly, most of the time racially.
And OMG, *HOLDS THE ENTIRE ROOM HOSTAGE WITH A NAIL FILE* they'd detain you for that as a deadly weapon lofl.
I dun think you realize what's slowly happened to our basic freedoms over the course of the last 10 years.
Anyways, all this airport security business is absolutely ridiculous. It has been...since 9/11,
*sighs* I'm frightened at what is going on, but more frightened that people would even try to rationalize it. Of course your history books won't tell you the god-awful truths, so talk to someone's grandparents who survived the Holocaust and then come back and post "hey, it's nothing."
I can't believe you'd be so petty as to demean the atrocity of the holocaust by comparing it to full body xrays in airports.
We all know your looking to vindicate your dull lives in some middle class suburbia by making up fantastical stories of oppression and repression, to impose some narrative onto an otherwise average life, through stories of vast conspiracy and exploitation.
You don't know what oppression means. I doubt you even know what hunger means.
Limitation of one's rights is something to be wary of, if not afraid, no matter the scale. Why does this bother you so much that you attempt to ridicule the guy?
Any unjustified limitation of freedom would be analogous to holocaust; why not? You think holocaust happened overnight? Freedoms were taken away bit by bit during the nazi regime, and it was full blown barbarism when the war broke out.
If your life is meaningless and not in need of a narrative, feel free to get lost in oblivion with your unvoiced opinions and condescending rhetoric but don't ridicule someone who expresses their own opinion. This is a subtle form of oppression as well.
Inb4 'you dont know what oppression means, blabla' lol
It is indeed something to be wary of. I responded Krigwin list of complaints without any pretense or insult. However, that isn't what he did, so I'd appreciate if you wouldn't take my words out of context. Expressing an opinion is not the same as sensationalism. If expressing them as they are isn't strong enough, then perhaps they aren't strong enough. By your logic, healthcare is deathpanels and obama is Hitler, simply by drawing a few easily observed similarities.
In fact, by your logic, I could call you Hitler because how you "Use words which have powerful public resonance to spread fear and sway opinion". Because hitler did that too!.
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
So, according to:
A) Only certain people are chosen to suffer this unconstitutional humiliation? How, may I ask, is that protecting homeland security when, according to your statistics, 85-90% of John Q Public walks right past the guards?
B) I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Big Brother is - and has been for years - watching us. And the citizens of the United States (too many of them) follow blindly believing whatever the government brainwashes them to believe.
C) By "nobody" do you mean that sicko who can't get a job as a law enforcement officer so, they get hired by private security companies?
D) We know that a granny's nail file is considered a weapon, oh and the knife that grandpa uses to whittle away at a piece of wood is a deadly weapon as well.
*sighs* I'm frightened at what is going on, but more frightened that people would even try to rationalize it. Of course your history books won't tell you the god-awful truths, so talk to someone's grandparents who survived the Holocaust and then come back and post "hey, it's nothing."
A) Obviously the public is subject to airport security procedure. They simply do not walk through, no. Travel and you will understand said procedures.
B) .....
C) No i mean, from what I have been taught in Canada, you do not touch a persons genitals. It's pretty fucked up to do so, as I believe they do not have the right. IF they say they are going to, stop them, tell them to call the police over, and have them explain to the police officer what suspicion they have in your groin. Then if the cop does not laugh in their face, have the police offer conduct the search. Then press charges.. ehehe nah i dunoo. And i'm not sure of your statement you make about "sickos" so I will leave it alone. And AGAIN, the body scanner is not mandatory.
D) No, a nail file is not a weapon. What we HAVE learnt here is your complete lack of knowledge in this subject. What is with people just spewing shit everywhere? Get down off of your cross and stop being such a pussy about everything. Nobody cares about you when you go through an airport. You are just a random passenger that we want to clear properly so we can move on to the next one.
And chill with the holocaust stuff. You are so way off it's almost comical. Hey Mom I heard you got pat down at the airport, how was it?? OH son, have you ever heard of the holocaust? God you are dim dude.
So in other words you were referring to a comment which you intentionally took out of context to make it sound really pathetic, and you really are a petty little kid fixated with convenience.
KK BRAH
It was taken out of context. It was quoted and replied to in a general sense with a criticism of the principle. I stopped talking about specifics a long time ago. You brought up specifics in conjunction with more important issues to minimize a general application, which is silly.
Why taking things out of context is always thought of negatively is strange, considering you need to be able to isolate ideas in order to have a civilized conversation.
If you think that the principle of accepting a system simply because it exists is really pathetic when applied generally, then we agree. If not, we disagree.
What we disagree with aren't the principal, but the application. Assuming we could change everything simply by wishing it, then perhaps your view would hold truer. But that isn't how the world works. We have to choose which hills to die on, so to speak, and by comparing airport security in the U.S. to say, the holocaust, well, its nothing short of petty. Every change comes with sacrifice. As I said, what will you sacrifice? The answer is nothing. You aren't willing to sacrifice national security, and you aren't willing to pay 100$ more on travel feels (You, as in, as a collective of consumers, not just you romantic ), so stop bitching without direction or aim, but rather, just to bitch, because it feels good, it feels good to pretend this is a big conspiracy against the public.
I do not think it is rambling because it feels good! Individualism, democracy, self management, anti-authority etc, apply to smaller situations like airport security just as they do to larger ones like your Holocausts and your Great Leap Forwards. Sort of like stealing candy or Madoff's ponzi scheme; same thing, different scales. I think your anti-Romantic anger is unjustified on the grounds am I discussing applications of an idea\principle, not necessarily comparing one outcome of its application to another outcome.
I do think short term, but I mostly left it for others in the thread to talk about the specifics of TSA "security" and make economic or practical arguments. I mean, I could point out that terrorists would just move on to buses or trains even if you 100% foiled every attempt to stop them from blowing up planes (and thus specific prevention is nearly impossible), but that doesn't make anyone think about the top down and unaccountable practices of unelected TSA bureaucrats, or even authority in general.
If I got someone to think about the process that results in these sorts of measures I think I was a success. I didn't feel like discussing the conclusion is particularly important, the process is.
As for sacrificing, if the majority of the people involved in airline travel had debated and agreed to certain security measures, I would go with that. As it is your opinion is already sacrificed to TSA, so as it comes to decision making power, ours is already sacrificed. I would make a spirited case against your nakey scanners, but I would accept their implementation. Worth pointing out that polls show I would probably lose (55 CNN Poll - 80% CBS Poll approve of the scanners, albeit with no debate) but I am still very happy to have that decision because I am a principled person.
I would like to distance myself from the 9\11 was an inside job guy, though... it reminds me of how Michael Savage always has on crazy socialist callers who say nobody should make over 100,000$ and he gets them to admit it by pressing them a little bit, then uses that to show how silly anyone who is left of center-right is >.<. Bad examples, man, bad examples.
On November 21 2010 12:02 Half wrote: I get why your angry, but what do you propose in place of this? We either hire better TSA personnel, which costs money, which is going to come from ticket prices or taxes, or we laxen security to pre 9/11 standards.
Well, I'm not an airport security expert, nor am I a counter-terrorism specialist, but here are my thoughts:
First thing is we need less reactive security measures (and that is purely what this is, a completely reactionary precaution that wouldn't even have stopped the attacks that inspired it in the first place, I'm speaking of the Christmas underwear bomber of course), and more general security measures. Trying to x-ray and strip search every man, grandma, and 4-year old child going on vacation for the holidays on the infinitesimal chance that one of them happens to be carrying liquid explosives is grossly inefficient and a violation of basic freedoms. Trying instead to profile, investigate, and catch terrorists when they attempt to obtain these liquid explosives in the first place however, is how counter-terrorism is done.
As for airport security in particular, there's really no great answer to this as you're either going to piss off the small-government anti-statist crowd or the pro-government general welfare crowd. Either let the private airlines police their own and choose their own methods for protecting their own property and customers, or have a more elite force (not the TSA) that uses proper counter-terrorism techniques like the Israelis use, ie behavior profiling (not racial profiling) and anti-explosive sniffing technology. A simple metal detector and residue test would substitute quite nicely for these scanner machines and not even come close to violating the 4th Amendment. You speak of the costs, well these machines cost $250k a pop, so clearly the funding is already there.
But no matter what you're going to have to come to the point where when airport security is bulletproof the terrorists are just going to move on to different targets, and you cannot realistically police and protect every single method of transportation and high-population venue. General counter-terrorism tactics are always going to be more efficient than reactive measures, and while it makes sense to have some reactive precautions in place, like the aforementioned sniffer and metal detector checks, we must always be certain that their benefits outweigh the drawbacks. These scanner machines, even if they worked, which they don't, are simply too problematic and unethical to warrant such widespread mandated use. The people in this thread trying to argue in favor of them are really trying to expand the topic beyond these machines and turning it into some kind of heated civil liberties debate when really it's a simple issue of overpriced and useless machinery that has the side effect of violating people's rights. Even if you astonishingly have no issue with these scanners despite their worthlessness, just the issue of who is using them should be cause enough to be against them. I cannot honestly see how anyone can disagree with this.
[QUOTE]On November 21 2010 14:21 Krigwin wrote: [QUOTE]On November 21 2010 12:02 Half wrote: I get why your angry, but what do you propose in place of this? We either hire better TSA personnel, which costs money, which is going to come from ticket prices or taxes, or we laxen security to pre 9/11 standards. [/QUOTE] Well, I'm not an airport security expert, nor am I a counter-terrorism specialist, but here are my thoughts:
First thing is we need less reactive security measures (and that is purely what this is, a completely reactionary precaution that wouldn't even have stopped the attacks that inspired it in the first place, I'm speaking of the Christmas underwear bomber of course), and more general security measures. Trying to x-ray and strip search every man, grandma, and 4-year old child going on vacation for the holidays on the infinitesimal chance that one of them happens to be carrying liquid explosives is grossly inefficient and a violation of basic freedoms. Trying instead to profile, investigate, and catch terrorists when they attempt to obtain these liquid explosives in the first place however, is how counter-terrorism is done.
As for airport security in particular, there's really no great answer to this as you're either going to piss off the small-government anti-statist crowd or the pro-government general welfare crowd. Either let the private airlines police their own and choose their own methods for protecting their own property and customers, or have a more elite force (not the TSA) that uses proper counter-terrorism techniques like the Israelis use, ie behavior profiling (not racial profiling) and anti-explosive sniffing technology. A simple metal detector and residue test would substitute quite nicely for these scanner machines and not even come close to violating the 4th Amendment. You speak of the costs, well these machines cost $250k a pop, so clearly the funding is already there.
Really well said and I couldn't agree more. And yes, earlier in this shitstorm I proposed a metal detector and explosives trace technique that we employ in Canada. Great minds my friend.
On November 21 2010 12:53 LxRogue wrote: It's security theater and absolute bullshit.
The only intelligent thing the TSA has done since 9/11 is put a locked door and gun in the cockpit. Fucking simple and effective. A single wacko carries plastic explosive in his pants, and now we need to take nude pictures of 300 million people. 10x3 ounce containers of liquid are OK, but 1x4 container is banned.
If a few, determined people put a little bit of thought into it, they could easily take down an airplane. Obviously the same goes for any other form of mass transportation. Bus, train, metro - all have ZERO security, but no attacks.
I love how your perfectly reasonable comment was completely ignored in favor of attacking those who agree but have poor reasons xD
On November 21 2010 12:53 LxRogue wrote: It's security theater and absolute bullshit.
The only intelligent thing the TSA has done since 9/11 is put a locked door and gun in the cockpit. Fucking simple and effective. A single wacko carries plastic explosive in his pants, and now we need to take nude pictures of 300 million people. 10x3 ounce containers of liquid are OK, but 1x4 container is banned.
If a few, determined people put a little bit of thought into it, they could easily take down an airplane. Obviously the same goes for any other form of mass transportation. Bus, train, metro - all have ZERO security, but no attacks.
I love how your perfectly reasonable comment was completely ignored in favor of attacking those who agree but have poor reasons xD
This entire thread is a joke man. Rogue has a really good point but people like crying about anything they can find. I'm sure I could find plenty of ways to put something destructive into a tiny bottle of "lotion" and stil lcrash the plane.... Saddest thing is that only major airports adhere stringently to these rules, I walked through a Monterey airport with shampoo conditioner, the big bottles because I had no idea people got butthurt over it. Was in school and went through boot camp at the time so I practically lived under a rock. They didn't care at all they were ok sure go through, then when I had to make a connector flight and had to goback thru security they were like whoa no way. I was like I just got off a plane with this whats the point?
*sighs* I'm frightened at what is going on, but more frightened that people would even try to rationalize it. Of course your history books won't tell you the god-awful truths, so talk to someone's grandparents who survived the Holocaust and then come back and post "hey, it's nothing."
I can't believe you'd be so petty as to demean the atrocity of the holocaust by comparing it to full body xrays in airports.
We all know your looking to vindicate your dull lives in some middle class suburbia by making up fantastical stories of oppression and repression, to impose some narrative onto an otherwise average life, through stories of vast conspiracy and exploitation.
You don't know what oppression means. I doubt you even know what hunger means.
Limitation of one's rights is something to be wary of, if not afraid, no matter the scale. Why does this bother you so much that you attempt to ridicule the guy?
Any unjustified limitation of freedom would be analogous to holocaust; why not? You think holocaust happened overnight? Freedoms were taken away bit by bit during the nazi regime, and it was full blown barbarism when the war broke out.
If your life is meaningless and not in need of a narrative, feel free to get lost in oblivion with your unvoiced opinions and condescending rhetoric but don't ridicule someone who expresses their own opinion. This is a subtle form of oppression as well.
Inb4 'you dont know what oppression means, blabla' lol
It is indeed something to be wary of. I responded Krigwin list of complaints without any pretense or insult. However, that isn't what he did, so I'd appreciate if you wouldn't take my words out of context. Expressing an opinion is not the same as sensationalism. If expressing them as they are isn't strong enough, then perhaps they aren't strong enough. By your logic, healthcare is deathpanels and obama is Hitler, simply by drawing a few easily observed similarities.
In fact, by your logic, I could call you Hitler because how you "Use words which have powerful public resonance to spread fear and sway opinion". Because hitler did that too!.
As you can see, that would be fucking bullshit.
You call me hitler because I go against limitation of freedom on unjustified means?
What are you smoking? Lol don't let them catch you on the nude scanner. Trolling hard I see.
Couldn't care less :D, im no different than any other human being, if it helps security to make travelling safer, I'm fine with it, besides, nobody forces you to fly ^_^
i attended a lecture about the physics behind this, people are being really snooty about it "invading their privacy" but the same technology is used in shopping malls to find out what size clothes you fit. Apparently thats ok, but trying to stop terrorists? nah we will pass on that one....
it annoys me!
edit:its not x rays(forgotten what type of wave) and its hardly nude photos, just a rough shape to check everything is normal, during the lecture they also showed the same technology that had an AI that would recognise weapons for explosives.
GumThief: Canada's air security is awesome. Fast, efficient. I've gone through patdowns, and pretty much get the explosives test every time since I fly with a ton of electronics. Always polite & professional.
On November 21 2010 22:55 KakashiX wrote: i attended a lecture about the physics behind this, people are being really snooty about it "invading their privacy" but the same technology is used in shopping malls to find out what size clothes you fit. Apparently thats ok, but trying to stop terrorists? nah we will pass on that one....
it annoys me!
edit:its not x rays(forgotten what type of wave) and its hardly nude photos, just a rough shape to check everything is normal, during the lecture they also showed the same technology that had an AI that would recognise weapons for explosives.
You know if you can't recall the name, and are incapable of using google you might as well not post. But just to fill in the huge gaps its one of Millimeter wave scanner or Backscatter X-ray.
Both types of body imaging have associated health risks. If your "lecture" didn't mention it I can easily imagine it was a recruiting talk by the monkeys who run TSA.
The problem is not only with the scanning itself but with the whole system that has brought about the scanning. The TSA was created in response to 9/11, everything they do is in response to whatever the latest attempted terrorist plot happens to be. Since the installation of the body scanners there have been zero discoveries of weapons or explosives. The TSA mostly finds small amounts of recreational drugs (which they hold on to and then do you the courtesy of notifying the police so that they can come get you), and oversize bottles of lotion, haircare products, and perfume. As the measures get more invasive, the terrorists will adapt. The TSA is always one step behind the terrorists yet every American that flies has to give up their rights for the illusion of safety.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin
The only thing I wonder about these full body scans is "why are they necessary now when they weren't six months ago? What has happened between now and then that made them necessary? Did they learn something new?" I'll reserve judgement until someone gives me an answer that warrants the change.
I better get rid off some fat before my next trip, seriously, i wanna look sexier next time i go to the airport. Really uncomfortable measures, but hey, SAFETY comes first.
That is ridiculous that security would strip search a young boy. I cant believe that this stuff is going on, all the statements of losing freedom in the small things of life is actually happening.
On November 21 2010 22:55 KakashiX wrote: i attended a lecture about the physics behind this, people are being really snooty about it "invading their privacy" but the same technology is used in shopping malls to find out what size clothes you fit. Apparently thats ok, but trying to stop terrorists? nah we will pass on that one....
it annoys me!
edit:its not x rays(forgotten what type of wave) and its hardly nude photos, just a rough shape to check everything is normal, during the lecture they also showed the same technology that had an AI that would recognise weapons for explosives.
In the words of a great man,
Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -Abraham Lincoln
if everyone were to refuse the scan and opt for the pat downs, it would create such a huge problem that the TSA would have to change their policies as people would absolutely start missing their flights.
The greatest irony of this situation is that the bottle necks imposed by these procedures creates the best possible target for a willing terrorist to attack. During peak hours at airports like Pearson, O'Hare, LAX etc there can be hundreds of people in line clustered together with no immediate escape path (because of the lane queuing/bars in place). It's incredibly difficult to get a "device" on a plane...getting a device into the hub of a group of travelers seems quite easy.
On November 22 2010 10:08 Kennigit wrote: The greatest irony of this situation is that the bottle necks imposed by these procedures creates the best possible target for a willing terrorist to attack. During peak hours at airports like Pearson, O'Hare, LAX etc there can be hundreds of people in line clustered together with no immediate escape path (because of the lane queuing/bars in place). It's incredibly difficult to get a "device" on a plane...getting a device into the hub of a group of travelers seems quite easy.
It only takes one.
Oh shit, now there's going to be a line just to get in the line.
On November 22 2010 10:08 Kennigit wrote: The greatest irony of this situation is that the bottle necks imposed by these procedures creates the best possible target for a willing terrorist to attack. During peak hours at airports like Pearson, O'Hare, LAX etc there can be hundreds of people in line clustered together with no immediate escape path (because of the lane queuing/bars in place). It's incredibly difficult to get a "device" on a plane...getting a device into the hub of a group of travelers seems quite easy.
It only takes one.
This is a logical conclusion, they have targeted super markets and malls before. Hopefully they don't figure it out. They blow up people in baghdad in the market streets.
On November 21 2010 22:55 KakashiX wrote: i attended a lecture about the physics behind this, people are being really snooty about it "invading their privacy" but the same technology is used in shopping malls to find out what size clothes you fit. Apparently thats ok, but trying to stop terrorists? nah we will pass on that one....
it annoys me!
Wait a second... what malls are you going to? How is that more cost effective than letting people just try on clothes to see if they fit, especially when different people like their clothing fitted differently. In addition, for clothing, you wouldn't need to see someone's body but just know the size so that it just calculates the numbers and spits it out.
So yea, considering that I'm completely unfamiliar with this type of technology, it is weird to me. To me it's just kind of overdoing it. If there are health risks involved, then yea, I am against it. As for privacy, I'm against it too. Airports keep becoming more and more of a hassle. I remember getting pulled aside for questioning when I was like 16 years old. I told them I was flying home to Chicago and no, I've never had the ribs there (that must've been suspicious).
I guess I just don't see how the current system isn't enough. It's at a point where I really don't understand some regulations. For instance, if fluids just have to be divided into three oz, what prevents someone from taking like fifteen 3oz bottles of fluid and combining them? This summer I must've traveled with around 15oz of stuff, but since it was all separated it was ok. Also, my ID was expired (which I didn't know until the security guard pointed it out), but they were like 'whatever' and let me through. I got through two airports on that expired ID. The first airport didn't say anything.
We don't need more weird things like nude scans. We just need security guards to do their current job well and that should be good enough.
well at least I dont have to be the one to look at the bodies of fat and/or old men.
btw the fluid rule is literally the dumbest shit ever. try mixing the materials to make an explosive on a plane, I dare you. you will just start a fire in the bathroom, die a horrible death and then the fire retardants will stop it from being a risk to anyone else.
On November 19 2010 10:24 Zealotdriver wrote: At some point, the terrorists will figure out that they can just bomb the line waiting to go through security. Then what will we do?
On November 22 2010 10:08 Kennigit wrote: The greatest irony of this situation is that the bottle necks imposed by these procedures creates the best possible target for a willing terrorist to attack. During peak hours at airports like Pearson, O'Hare, LAX etc there can be hundreds of people in line clustered together with no immediate escape path (because of the lane queuing/bars in place). It's incredibly difficult to get a "device" on a plane...getting a device into the hub of a group of travelers seems quite easy.
On November 22 2010 10:08 Kennigit wrote: The greatest irony of this situation is that the bottle necks imposed by these procedures creates the best possible target for a willing terrorist to attack. During peak hours at airports like Pearson, O'Hare, LAX etc there can be hundreds of people in line clustered together with no immediate escape path (because of the lane queuing/bars in place). It's incredibly difficult to get a "device" on a plane...getting a device into the hub of a group of travelers seems quite easy.
It only takes one.
Oh shit, now there's going to be a line just to get in the line.
Yo dawg, I heard you like waiting in line, so we put a line on your line so you can say fuck it and just drive instead.
A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was
left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
“I was absolutely humiliated, I couldn’t even speak,” said Thomas D. “Tom” Sawyer, 61, of Lansing, Mich.
Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his stomach. “I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.”
On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the advertisement advertisement Courtesy Thomas Sawyer Thomas Sawyer, 61, said he was left "humiliated" and covered in urine after undergoing a TSA pat-down. 393433926217993370499 TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine 'I was absolutely humiliated,' said bladder cancer survivor
security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.”
Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”
Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”
Related: Obama: TSA pat-downs frustrating but necessary
Before starting the enhanced pat-down procedure, a security officer did tell him what they were going to do and how they were going to it, but Sawyer said it wasn’t until they asked him to remove his sweatshirt and saw his urostomy bag that they asked any questions about his medical condition.
“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure
enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”
The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, “He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn’t seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark.”
Humiliated, upset and wet, Sawyer said he had to walk through the airport soaked in urine, board his plane and wait until after takeoff before he could clean up.
“I am totally appalled by the fact that agents that are performing these pat-downs have so little concern for people with medical conditions,” said Sawyer.
Vote: What do you think about "opt out" day? advertisement advertisement
Sawyer completed his trip and had no problems with the security procedures at the Orlando International Airport on his journey back home. He said he plans to file a formal complaint with the TSA.
When he does, said TSA spokesperson Dwayne Baird, “We will review the matter and t ake appropriate action if necessary.” In the meantime, Baird encourages anyone with a medical condition to read the TSA’s website section on assistive devices and mobility aids.
The website says that travelers with disabilities and medical conditions have “the option of requesting a private screening” and that security officers “will not ask nor require you to remove your prosthetic device, cast, or support brace.”
Related: TSA forces cancer survivor to show prosthetic breast
Sawyer said he's written to his senators, state representatives and the president of the United States. He’s also shared details of the incident online with members of the nonprofit Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, many of whom have offered support and shared their travel experiences.
“I am a good American and I want safety for all passengers as much as the next person," Sawyer said. "But if this country is going to sacrifice treating people like human beings in the name of safety, then we have already lost the war.”
Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network executive director Claire Saxton said that there are hundreds of thousands of people living with ostomies in the United States. “TSA agents need to be trained to listen when someone tells them have a health issue and trained in knowing what an ostomy is. No one living with an ostomy should be afraid of flying because they’re afraid of being humiliated at the checkpoint.”
Eric Lipp, executive director of Open Doors Association, which works with businesses and the disability community, called what happened to Sawyer “unfortunate.”
“But enhanced pat-downs are not a new issue for people with disabilities who travel," Lipp said. "They've always had trouble getting through the security checkpoint."
Still, Lipp said the TSA knows there’s a problem. “This came up during a recent advertisement advertisement
meeting of the agency’s disability advisory board and I expect to see a procedure coming in place shortly that will directly address the pat-down procedures for people with disabilities.”
Harriet Baskas is a frequent contributor to msnbc.com, authors the “Stuck at the Airport” blog and is a columnist for USATODAY.com. You can follow her on Twitter .
advertisement advertisement Quantcast
TL;DR: Man with cancer problems needs urine bag strapped outside his body. TSA strip search in a very rude manner, and despite repeated warnings from the poor guy, fucked up the pee bag and the man was covered in his own piss. TSA pretend they didn't see anything, and without even an apology, sends him on his way. Man is humiliated and outraged.
In Soviet Russia America, security pisses on YOU.
also in the article: Breast cancer woman forced to show her prosthetic boob. More humiliation and rage ensues.
It does my heart good to see the "outrage" of the people. I smile at the lawsuits being brought against TSA. Unfortunately, too many people have already suffered this infringement on privacy. I am grateful to the people who stand up for their rights and fight for freedom. The people who remember that the atrocities during the holocaust began with one simple decree entitled:
Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State
Thank you to those whose eyes are open and who choose to think for themselves. And to those who disagree - it is your right to think as you wish because of the people who fought for that freedom.
A response given by the head of the TSA, John Pistole, who says the agency may consider changing their protocol.
Contains a mention of the aforementioned urine bag and boob implant cases, but also a new case where apparently during a pat-down a TSA officer stuck her hand inside a woman's panties and groped. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like it's crossed "Violating 4th Amendment" territory and gone right into "Sexual Assault" territory. In exactly what kind of situation would such a "search" be considered reasonable?
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.
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.
But these scanners are mandatory. If you fly, you have to go through them. Saying "then don't use it" is like saying "then don't go anywhere ever."
no they are not mandatory. you can decline and get a pat down instead. from what i've gathered they do not literally touch your junk. most people are just going on the Touch my junk video and running with it.... they stop on your lower abdomen and at your upper leg. some people are just way too sensitive.
We are talking about mega-tonne 747s flying at hundreds of miles per hour above my house, my parents work, our children's school. Thousands of people a day are using these aircrafts. it better be for fucking sure safe to enter.
and talk about profiling or Israeli-styled security as some have pointed out to being the better option. imagine your TSA with sub-machine guns, stopping you when you pull up in your car, stopping you when you enter, stopping you when you pick up your tickets and check your bags. All asking you the same questions, being hassled your entire time at the airport. Sure there are no body scanners, but if that really the better option?
but A) Only about 10-15% of the travelling public are chosen for body scanners.
B) People chosen for the bodyscan/patdowns most of the time were selected even before they reached the airport. If it happens to you once, expect it every time. You are being profiled or selected on purpose.
C) Getting a pat down, if chosen, takes literally 25 seconds. Literally. Nobody wants to touch your penis. Nobody will. If they do, talk to their supervisors, then their supervisors. Get all of their names. It is completely unjust and wrong for this to happen. They are using a general search used by the police, not a prison style -- squat and cough type of shit.
D) You have no idea the amount of weapons and drugs I personally have seized or seen seized from people you would not expect. And from those you would expect. And therein lies the problem.
shorter answer-- get a pat down, its not bad at all. But i bet you you won't be chosen anyways.
So, according to:
A) Only certain people are chosen to suffer this unconstitutional humiliation? How, may I ask, is that protecting homeland security when, according to your statistics, 85-90% of John Q Public walks right past the guards?
B) I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Big Brother is - and has been for years - watching us. And the citizens of the United States (too many of them) follow blindly believing whatever the government brainwashes them to believe.
C) By "nobody" do you mean that sicko who can't get a job as a law enforcement officer so, they get hired by private security companies?
D) We know that a granny's nail file is considered a weapon, oh and the knife that grandpa uses to whittle away at a piece of wood is a deadly weapon as well.
*sighs* I'm frightened at what is going on, but more frightened that people would even try to rationalize it. Of course your history books won't tell you the god-awful truths, so talk to someone's grandparents who survived the Holocaust and then come back and post "hey, it's nothing."
A) Obviously the public is subject to airport security procedure. They simply do not walk through, no. Travel and you will understand said procedures.
B) .....
C) No i mean, from what I have been taught in Canada, you do not touch a persons genitals. It's pretty fucked up to do so, as I believe they do not have the right. IF they say they are going to, stop them, tell them to call the police over, and have them explain to the police officer what suspicion they have in your groin. Then if the cop does not laugh in their face, have the police offer conduct the search. Then press charges.. ehehe nah i dunoo. And i'm not sure of your statement you make about "sickos" so I will leave it alone. And AGAIN, the body scanner is not mandatory.
D) No, a nail file is not a weapon. What we HAVE learnt here is your complete lack of knowledge in this subject. What is with people just spewing shit everywhere? Get down off of your cross and stop being such a pussy about everything. Nobody cares about you when you go through an airport. You are just a random passenger that we want to clear properly so we can move on to the next one.
And chill with the holocaust stuff. You are so way off it's almost comical. Hey Mom I heard you got pat down at the airport, how was it?? OH son, have you ever heard of the holocaust? God you are dim dude.
D D) I care about me. and thats all its going to take for me to shove my foot up the TSA's ass
A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was
left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
“I was absolutely humiliated, I couldn’t even speak,” said Thomas D. “Tom” Sawyer, 61, of Lansing, Mich.
Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his stomach. “I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.”
On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the advertisement advertisement Courtesy Thomas Sawyer Thomas Sawyer, 61, said he was left "humiliated" and covered in urine after undergoing a TSA pat-down. 393433926217993370499 TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine 'I was absolutely humiliated,' said bladder cancer survivor
security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.”
Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”
Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”
Related: Obama: TSA pat-downs frustrating but necessary
Before starting the enhanced pat-down procedure, a security officer did tell him what they were going to do and how they were going to it, but Sawyer said it wasn’t until they asked him to remove his sweatshirt and saw his urostomy bag that they asked any questions about his medical condition.
“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure
enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”
The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, “He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn’t seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark.”
Humiliated, upset and wet, Sawyer said he had to walk through the airport soaked in urine, board his plane and wait until after takeoff before he could clean up.
“I am totally appalled by the fact that agents that are performing these pat-downs have so little concern for people with medical conditions,” said Sawyer.
Vote: What do you think about "opt out" day? advertisement advertisement
Sawyer completed his trip and had no problems with the security procedures at the Orlando International Airport on his journey back home. He said he plans to file a formal complaint with the TSA.
When he does, said TSA spokesperson Dwayne Baird, “We will review the matter and t ake appropriate action if necessary.” In the meantime, Baird encourages anyone with a medical condition to read the TSA’s website section on assistive devices and mobility aids.
The website says that travelers with disabilities and medical conditions have “the option of requesting a private screening” and that security officers “will not ask nor require you to remove your prosthetic device, cast, or support brace.”
Related: TSA forces cancer survivor to show prosthetic breast
Sawyer said he's written to his senators, state representatives and the president of the United States. He’s also shared details of the incident online with members of the nonprofit Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, many of whom have offered support and shared their travel experiences.
“I am a good American and I want safety for all passengers as much as the next person," Sawyer said. "But if this country is going to sacrifice treating people like human beings in the name of safety, then we have already lost the war.”
Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network executive director Claire Saxton said that there are hundreds of thousands of people living with ostomies in the United States. “TSA agents need to be trained to listen when someone tells them have a health issue and trained in knowing what an ostomy is. No one living with an ostomy should be afraid of flying because they’re afraid of being humiliated at the checkpoint.”
Eric Lipp, executive director of Open Doors Association, which works with businesses and the disability community, called what happened to Sawyer “unfortunate.”
“But enhanced pat-downs are not a new issue for people with disabilities who travel," Lipp said. "They've always had trouble getting through the security checkpoint."
Still, Lipp said the TSA knows there’s a problem. “This came up during a recent advertisement advertisement
meeting of the agency’s disability advisory board and I expect to see a procedure coming in place shortly that will directly address the pat-down procedures for people with disabilities.”
Harriet Baskas is a frequent contributor to msnbc.com, authors the “Stuck at the Airport” blog and is a columnist for USATODAY.com. You can follow her on Twitter .
advertisement advertisement Quantcast
TL;DR: Man with cancer problems needs urine bag strapped outside his body. TSA strip search in a very rude manner, and despite repeated warnings from the poor guy, fucked up the pee bag and the man was covered in his own piss. TSA pretend they didn't see anything, and without even an apology, sends him on his way. Man is humiliated and outraged.
In Soviet Russia America, security pisses on YOU.
also in the article: Breast cancer woman forced to show her prosthetic boob. More humiliation and rage ensues.
Pretty terrible. And so obviously so that it actually has antagonized all political wings of this country...how rare... Given that no constituency supports this, and there is not even a benefit to security, and that the cronyism involved in the TSA on this issue has been put under the microscope, I am curious to see what results will come of this.
Especially as this problem is analogous to deeper problems within our government (wasted money/cronyism/government incompetence). Tackling this issue--I hope--might start a positive trend?
In the news today, Gizmodo obtains 100 nude body scans under the freedom of information act, despite the fact that the machines "cannot store, print, transmit or save the image".
Oops, there goes all your arguments about airport security actually being effective. Now you must feel really silly for letting them grope you and scan your small pee pee for no reason.
-----
in all seriousness, "OMG WE MUST SACRIFICE EVERYTHING FOR SECURITY!!" is just exactly what the government wants you to believe. Its a tried and true propaganda tactic of governments worldwide. You panic, they offer shitty service at exuberant price, you pay up, they fondle your bundle. If any company in the private sector tried this, and treated air passengers as rudely as the TSA does, they would be shat into bankruptcy instantly. But since its the government doing it, once the storm of bad PR blows over, there will be no other consequences.
The TSA will back off, for multitudinous reasons which the Obama administration should've seen coming miles away. Let's count. 1) Everybody hates it 2) They have no proof of the effectiveness of the new techniques 3) They have failed literally every single time, the best defense America currently has against terrorism is the fact that terrorists keep fucking up their bombs… 4) They have no guidelines or structure, the TSA pretty much "wings" it from airport to airport 5) They employ no exceptions for people with medical conditions or for small children 6) They are still managing to justify all of this in light of the fact that dedicated Muslim women are free from all these invasions (don't get me wrong, all people should be free from these invasions, it's just hypocritical PC bullshit 7) The TSA administrator pretty much dared Congress to make him and his self-interested agency irrelevant by telling the country that he didn't care one bit about public opinion. See here.Some representatives have already begun screening corporations for the purpose of taking over the TSA's job. Lol.
I voted for the man, but I'm planning on pinning this little piece of fail on his list of disappointing non-accomplishments as commander in chief.
Who really cares. Its not like they are gonna go home and be like hey look i got an xray of a hot gurl. You are simply walking through it. Better then other things they could do.
Oops, there goes all your arguments about airport security actually being effective. Now you must feel really silly for letting them grope you and scan your small pee pee for no reason.
-----
in all seriousness, "OMG WE MUST SACRIFICE EVERYTHING FOR SECURITY!!" is just exactly what the government wants you to believe. Its a tried and true propaganda tactic of governments worldwide. You panic, they offer shitty service at exuberant price, you pay up, they fondle your bundle. If any company in the private sector tried this, and treated air passengers as rudely as the TSA does, they would be shat into bankruptcy instantly. But since its the government doing it, once the storm of bad PR blows over, there will be no other consequences.
I totally believe it, and I agree with your sentiment.
I know someone who accidentally brought a 3-inch knife onboard a plane (was not caught) and another person who accidentally brought a LOADED .22-CALIBER PISTOL when he grabbed his hunting backpack instead of his travel backpack.
On November 24 2010 08:27 FlyingLigerz wrote: Who really cares. Its not like they are gonna go home and be like hey look i got an xray of a hot gurl. You are simply walking through it. Better then other things they could do.
What would be worse, for example? Keep in mind strip searches are already occurring in many instances.
On November 24 2010 08:08 SolidusR wrote: 6) They are still managing to justify all of this in light of the fact that dedicated Muslim women are free from all these invasions (don't get me wrong, all people should be free from these invasions, it's just hypocritical PC bullshit
This is completely false, at least according to the newly published TSA rules. They explicitly state that there is no religious exception to the molestation pat downs, and that religious head coverings and other garb may have to be removed.
On October 23 2008 21:47 Jizz wrote: those pictures are disssssturbing
So what? An x-ray image of your skeleton is disturbing, too. Honestly, I wouldn´t mind and I certainly wouldn´t lose my dignity. As long as they don´t save these pictures, I am fine with it.
lol? The fact that they have appeared in this thread is proof that they are, not only saved, but distributed by means phones/websites. While I appreciate the added security at our airports, this is unacceptable. I'm not ashamed of being searched, nor being scanned, but when the results of such tests are exploited without consent of the individual, our rights are obviously violated.
I just hope Al Qaeda get on with developing and using a fully swallowable bomb package (that fails to take the plane down). It's got to be possible, and the sooner they do it the sooner all this "security theatre" bullshit will be over.
I've just read Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother" the other day, and now this... It's pretty funny. In the book Doctorow pictures exactly the same issue: useless security measures that do nothing except invade your privacy and infringe your rights.
How many terrorists will be caught with this TSA scanner? Somehow I'm thinking about the number ZERO. How many people will be inconvenienced? Quite a lot, I would assume. It will only give rise to more fear and anxiety in the masses... not the worst thing for the government, eh.
I brought up this issue with a friend the other day to get his thoughts on the matter. He advanced the argument that even if these security measures (the scanners to be specific) are completely ineffective currently, they are still worthwhile. He asserted that the TSA (and government in general) is doubtless gathering data from their operation and is thus rapidly working to improve the devices so that they will eventually become effective and that in the meantime the infrastructure needed to be put in place for that eventuality.
I was, well, flabbergasted and did not even know how to respond. I was rather stunned that he could so wholeheartedly support something that he acknowledged as being ineffective. We did not even touch upon any ethical/legal concerns
On November 24 2010 21:13 Draconizard wrote: I brought up this issue with a friend the other day to get his thoughts on the matter. He advanced the argument that even if these security measures (the scanners to be specific) are completely ineffective currently, they are still worthwhile. He asserted that the TSA (and government in general) is doubtless gathering data from their operation and is thus rapidly working to improve the devices so that they will eventually become effective and that in the meantime the infrastructure needed to be put in place for that eventuality.
I was, well, flabbergasted and did not even know how to respond. I was rather stunned that he could so wholeheartedly support something that he acknowledged as being ineffective. We did not even touch upon any ethical/legal concerns
You should probably tell your friend to stop being a clueless blowhard.
Now, granted, given the TSA's illustrious history of competency and efficiency and total lawfulness, it might seem reasonable to expect some kind of "rapid" improvement, but the hope of progress in the future is still not a good enough defense for so many problems in the present. There are many ways of "gathering data" (what kind of data is being collected anyways from all these lawsuits?), and having infrastructure in place is great and all, but not when the infrastructure is causing more problems than the eventual operations they are in place for will solve.
Yeah I couldn't care less but I imagine there are people out there who would. If a person really wants to smuggle something onboard they can... its really not that hard. I've gotten away with a billfold that has a jackknife in it. And a multitool in the past that has a variety of threatening things...
"What do you want to do, get blown up by a goddamn Arab at 30,000 feet or we get to see your private parts? It's up to you, the ball's in your park," head of the TSA's scanning department, Rodney Schroeder, told CNN.
I don't know about any of you, but I am not going through one of those machines. Who needs more radiation? That being said, we should try to make the searcher's jobs as humiliating as possible. We should moan during the duration of the search, and say things like:
"Wow!! You've done this before!!"
"Hey, you know, if you like touching other guys' junk, you could get paid a lot more as a male prostitute."
"Hey, so were you a homosexual before you got this job, or did touching people's junk just do the trick for you?"
"Have you had your hepatitis shots? Neither have I!"
"You may not want to do that. I have the clap." <- Depends on them being dumb, but this seems like a safe bet.
My personal favourite is:
"Wanna hear a joke? You guys have been at this for years, and you still haven't stopped a single terrorist attack! HERPDERP"
On November 25 2010 04:29 Xanbatou wrote: I don't know about any of you, but I am not going through one of those machines. Who needs more radiation? That being said, we should try to make the searcher's jobs as humiliating as possible. We should moan during the duration of the search, and say things like:
"Wow!! You've done this before!!"
"Hey, you know, if you like touching other guys' junk, you could get paid a lot more as a male prostitute."
"Hey, so were you a homosexual before you got this job, or did touching people's junk just do the trick for you?"
"Have you had your hepatitis shots? Neither have I!"
"You may not want to do that. I have the clap." <- Depends on them being dumb, but this seems like a safe bet.
My personal favourite is:
"Wanna hear a joke? You guys have been at this for years, and you still haven't stopped a single terrorist attack! HERPDERP"
this shows your stupidity ... they already have to deal with people like you every day... also lol radiation... you get 5x the amount from riding in the airplane or even walking around the airport.. so that's not even a logical argument..also why would you be so horrid to a person that already hates their job... you think TSA agents enjoy having to pat down people all day long? i would say no(i actually know a TSA agent) the one i know hates her job, but does it because she wants to help protect people like you who want to travel from getting blown up in a plane or end up as a hostage in a take over ... i know its sad that you have to abide by the security protocols but ide rather get on a plane knowing im not going to have to die because some crazy random person got through security with explosives or a gun of sorts ....
Why make the persons life more miserable by being a complete douche bag? i mean it is a person. Would you want be treated with such hostility and disrespect for doing your job? I know i wouldn't want to be treated so terribly and would not put up with it. the fact that you even state this means you are a person with little respect for your own self and others... makes me sad to see this kind of attitude towards PEOPLE for no better reason than to just make their life more miserable.
On November 25 2010 05:02 Nazarid wrote: this shows your stupidity ... they already have to deal with people like you every day... also lol radiation... you get 5x the amount from riding in the airplane or even walking around the airport.. so that's not even a logical argument..also why would you be so horrid to a person that already hates their job... you think TSA agents enjoy having to pat down people all day long? i would say no(i actually know a TSA agent) the one i know hates her job, but does it because she wants to help protect people like you who want to travel from getting blown up in a plane or end up as a hostage in a take over ... i know its sad that you have to abide by the security protocols but ide rather get on a plane knowing im not going to have to die because some crazy random person got through security with explosives or a gun of sorts ....
Why... do you... talk... like this... It makes... you sound... like... you have... a breathing disorder...
On November 25 2010 04:29 Xanbatou wrote: I don't know about any of you, but I am not going through one of those machines. Who needs more radiation? That being said, we should try to make the searcher's jobs as humiliating as possible. We should moan during the duration of the search, and say things like:
"Wow!! You've done this before!!"
"Hey, you know, if you like touching other guys' junk, you could get paid a lot more as a male prostitute."
"Hey, so were you a homosexual before you got this job, or did touching people's junk just do the trick for you?"
"Have you had your hepatitis shots? Neither have I!"
"You may not want to do that. I have the clap." <- Depends on them being dumb, but this seems like a safe bet.
My personal favourite is:
"Wanna hear a joke? You guys have been at this for years, and you still haven't stopped a single terrorist attack! HERPDERP"
this shows your stupidity ... they already have to deal with people like you every day... also lol radiation... you get 5x the amount from riding in the airplane or even walking around the airport.. so that's not even a logical argument..also why would you be so horrid to a person that already hates their job... you think TSA agents enjoy having to pat down people all day long? i would say no(i actually know a TSA agent) the one i know hates her job, but does it because she wants to help protect people like you who want to travel from getting blown up in a plane or end up as a hostage in a take over ... i know its sad that you have to abide by the security protocols but ide rather get on a plane knowing im not going to have to die because some crazy random person got through security with explosives or a gun of sorts ....
Why make the persons life more miserable by being a complete douche bag? i mean it is a person. Would you want be treated with such hostility and disrespect for doing your job? I know i wouldn't want to be treated so terribly and would not put up with it. the fact that you even state this means you are a person with little respect for your own self and others... makes me sad to see this kind of attitude towards PEOPLE for no better reason than to just make their life more miserable.
It's not to make their life more miserable just for the sake of making it miserable. It's to get them to complain enough to end all of these stupid airport shenanigans that don't actually make a difference. The fact is, unless they are going to shove their fist up your ass, someone could still sneak a bomb onto a plane.
Get TSA employees to complain by making fun of them, starting a chain reaction which will end "all stupid airport shenanigans."
Fight fire with fire. I like it. Your delivery is all wrong. You're leaving the people on whom your plan relies in the dark. Ever heard of the Bay of Pigs?
On November 25 2010 05:51 ev8 wrote: Get TSA employees to complain by making fun of them, starting a chain reaction which will end "all stupid airport shenanigans."
Fight fire with fire. I like it. Your delivery is all wrong. You're leaving the people on whom your plan relies in the dark. Ever heard of the Bay of Pigs?
It doesn't matter. The whole thing is a joke. Someone could still easily sneak a bomb onto a plane, yet they try to pretend that their required gropings are saving lives. In fact, people still accidentally bring dangerous objects onto airplanes. As long as they are going to be needlessly groping people, I am going to be needlessly making them fun of them and making them feel uncomfortable. If they don't already hate their job, they will, and I don't really see what's wrong with that. TSA has been a bunch of clowns for a while now.
Assuming you're not just talking the MOST garbage right now, you're gonna get "needlessly" layed out one day in an airport. Imagine if Nazarid up there had muscles.
I don't mind if they scan my peepee, but I'm pretty sure this is all just CYA activities by the TSA. I think this was initiated by the failure of our re-vamped intelligence network to stop the underwear bomber, so now the TSA has to show that they've taken due course on their part to prevent something like that from happening again.
If you don't like it, complain to your senator. Harassing the TSA agent will do little good aside from giving you a feeling of superiority. Everyone knows their job sucks and their complaints aren't going to be what changes TSA policy.
But somewhat related to that movie, not entirely related to full body scans tho. When I was in 9th grade, the whole class had gathered enough money for a week in Greece. And while we were there, we found a store that sold really cheap soft air guns. We didn't know this at that time, but apparently, you can't take them onboard the plane. Out of the 9 guys that had soft air guns in their luggage. Only the last guy got stopped, that's 8 in a row that they missed. And they caught the guy with the least realistic looking gun also, looked very plastic, and like a miniture sawed of shotgun.
So airport security feels sort of like hit and miss, the metal detectors I've noticed lately also give alot of false positives. When I went through it last time, it beeped, I freaked out a bit, went back through it, it didn't beep, they called me to the other side of it, passed it again, didn't beep, they gave me a pat-down and said that it happens alot. And then it beeped for another person while I was putting on my belt again...
edit: first sentance was directed to mgj who edited out the video before I posted.
Funny how with all these Wonderfully helpful new search techniques, all it would take would be a single terrorist with a air-transmitted bio-weapon in a crowded airport on the holidays to kill thousands of people. Besides the fact that a small amount of said bio-weapon could theoretically be transported in a small airport regulation shampoo bottle. Give the virus a couple of days incubation time, and voila. Mass murder. Completely undetectable.
As you can see, certain things like the plexiglass knife and cocaine packets are very easy to conceal if placed properly. This is a practical demonstration of how the machines are ineffective at spotting weapons and contraband unless they are made of metal or placed in a noobish position on the body.
This failure to detect weapons undermines the argument that the security provided by these machines is worth the health damage that they inflict.
I just took my girl to the Denver airport and she was telling me about the scanners (I already knew). She has a fear of flying i think becuase of terrorism, so i just told her "hey if you stay more safe at the price of a little dignity, isnt it worth it?" She had a hard time seeing it my way, but i believe thats a valid point.
I'm about to go to the airport for my return trip back to NY but i dont really care about them seeing me naked. I mean the most i can say to them is "Hey you should be happy, most people gotta pay to see me naked" As long as they are not touching me i dont have to much of a problem. Could you imagine if the scanner was a decent-hot women oh there could be problems.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/41/123156395_03086571d8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1220985,00.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1335251,00.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1335269,00.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/7839/1290305625054.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/245/1290305726152.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1737/freel.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/2FmO7.jpg)
