Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 103
  1. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Rejecting your reality and substituting my own
    Age
    30
    Posts
    10,871
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I still think all this focus on airplane security is a show. Security on trains, ferries, malls, stadiums, and arenas are still pretty lax.

    And don't forget that fellow passengers stopped the underwear bomber even when security failed. If it's just one fool sneaking a knife or gun on board, as long as the cockpit is locked, it shouldn't be a problem if he succeeds. When it comes to chemical stuff, it's definitely trickier, but I don't think an x-ray or metal detector would get everything anyway.

    And again, if the cockpit is locked, they can't hijack the plane anyway so all they'd kill are the people in the plane at most. If the terrorists were smart, they'd start going after sold-out stadiums or somewhere else where they'd be able to kill a lot more people.

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    1,836
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kedrin View Post
    wrong. travel is a right. and I can't swim to Cambodia.

    Ehhh, you have the right to have equal opportunity to travel among the methods that the market has made available, technically.

    The only reason flying is available is because it's economically feasible for companies to buy planes and provide flights. If it wasn't economically feasible airlines would disappear. In that instance you can jump up and down all you want about your rights, but you won't be flying unless you get a pilot's license and rent a plane. Other than that, so entity including the government, is obliged to provide flights to you.

    It's not a right. It's an honor and privilege to have this convenience available to us.

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Missing Matsutake
    Posts
    2,737
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    People are still scared sh!tless over terrorists??!! Maybe we should be more concerned with auto safety, food safety and a variety of other issues that kill more Americans than terrorism ever has.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    6,820
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    257
    Here is an article/video of the 3-year-old who got the full pat down and was in hysterics. Wonder if she'd had the good touch/bad touch talk yet and how much her being groped really screwed with her mind.

  5. #45
    OmnipresentAdmeanistrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    7,938
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm quite surprised to see so many simplistic and dismissing "Don't like it, don't fly" answers here, to be honest. I thought as a group we were better at being able to discuss complex issues like that. Or at least to be able to see that they're complex and not as black and white as some answers would suggest.

    The guy who sparked the story is pretty much irrelevant; it doesn't really matter if he did it to get his 15 minutes. The important questions still remain. How effective the security checks really are? What are the alternatives? How many rights and privacy are we willing to give up for the illusion of safety? Etc. If the guy gets (and he obviously has) people talking about it and making them think, more power to him. Anything that makes us think is good.

    Personally I'm against the body scanners at airports. I think it is a violation of my privacy. Have I seen the pictures it takes? Of course. Before I made up my mind I researched the subject. There's a few different scanners. One in particular is very detailed. It is like seeing you completely naked and having all the contours of your body, including genitals, outlined, which makes it nothing less than a virtual strip search. Here you can see the images for yourself. First a woman, and around 0:42 you can see a guy with all the details of his "junk" clearly visible. And don't forget the people looking at the image have the ability to blow up any area. As for storing images, if it can be done in a test mode it means it can be done. Period.

    And it has been done: Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images

    I don't think seeing my naked body is essential for air travel safety. So unless it's someone I'm intimately involved with; a medical professional or I'm in jail where I have no choice, I'm saying no. While I still can.

    The violation of privacy is one thing. If the scanners were 100% (or close to it) effective in preventing terrorists from trying to blow up planes (and some people obviously think they are if they reply to people objecting to the scanners with stuff like "Would you rather die in a plane crash?") I would definitely reconsider. But it only takes someone sticking something up their anus or vagina to render the scanner completely useless. And while the scanners can detect high-density material such as metal knives, guns and dense plastic such as C4 explosives, low-density things like thin plastic, ceramic knives, chemicals and liquids were missed in trials.

    The Body Scanner Scam: Why invading our physical privacy at airports won't make us safe.

    So what exactly is the purpose of me going through the indignity of a virtual strip search, not to mention someone violating my Constitutional rights every time I get on a plane?

    I wouldn't be surprised at all if those producing the scanners and the technology had a connection to those who make the rules about their use. It'd be just another version of Iraq and the development contracts. Follow the money.

    As for the guy who had a bomb in his underwear who is so frequently used in the arguments why we should have the scanners (apart for the high probability the explosives he had on him wouldn't have been detected by the body scanners). If the most basic security checks had been used correctly (aka people supposed to do them did their job), and the most important as intelligence, he would have never gotten on that plane. He had been initially declined the US visa because he was caught lying on his application (that decision was overturned because of who the guy's father is); he had a one-way ticket, no luggage on a multi-continental trip and most of all, his own father had warned the CIA that his son might try doing something like this. I mean, come fcuking on! Seeing our genitals can't be an answer to stupidity and sheer incompetency.

    And like other people have already said, if someone tries to blow up a plane with things they sneaked in in their anus/vagina, are you going to line up and let some random stranger stick their finger in you at the airport? I'm just curious how much privacy and rights people are willing to give up if they are told it's for their own good. I guess those in power are testing the same thing right now.

    Anyway, so it's the pat down for me. I haven't seen the new one so I don't know how I feel about it. But if it gets too uncomfortable I still can say no. If you go through the scanner you don't know what happens in the other room. Who sees it, how much they see and what they're going to do with it. Yes, I know, they say it's all safe, but people are only people. If there's a chance for something to be abused, it will be abused. We already know they can and have stored some of the images. So I'd rather have a face-to-face encounter with someone where I still have some control over the situation. And no private room for me. If you're going to feel me up I want other people there for my safety.

    Btw, I just wonder what they're going to do if some woman has her period and uses heavy-duty pads. If they really touch your crotch they're going to feel it. Are they going to make her take it out and prove what it is? Wouldn't surprise me, having seen how professional and tactful they can be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-jdDE6bFow&NR=1

    So maybe if I decided to refuse the pat down halfway through they would throw me to the ground like that woman in the video above or threaten me with a big fine like they did the guy who this thread is about. Who knows. But "if it makes us safe" it must be all right.

    "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    7,343
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by WindSpirit View Post

    Whole Post

    ITA!!

  7. #47

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Beijing, China
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,635
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11435
    Quote Originally Posted by Anita18 View Post
    And again, if the cockpit is locked, they can't hijack the plane anyway so all they'd kill are the people in the plane at most.
    "All" they'd kill? A plane full of people is still a lot of people. And there are plenty of ways to bring a plane down, and kill more people on the ground, without getting into the cockpit.

    I don't think current security, or any security, will ever be guaranteed, but I have no problem with body searches and the security checks that I have had.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    In the Land of Unrealistic Assumptions
    Posts
    4,514
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2293
    I'm flying out tonight and if one TSA employee sitting in a closed booth taking a gander at a digital scan of my saggy body is all it takes to stop some lunatic from bringing plastic explosives onto the plane, I'm fine with that. It's not like they're posting the images on a big screen TV in the middle of the airport, with a bunch of people laughing and pointing. Heck the last time I flew, I followed a group of nuns in habits through the scanner. If nuns don't have a problem with it, neither do I.
    "You just can't underestimate the power of positive underwear." 2013 Fruit of the Loom ad

  9. #49
    OmnipresentAdmeanistrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    7,938
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zaphyre14 View Post
    I'm flying out tonight and if one TSA employee sitting in a closed booth taking a gander at a digital scan of my saggy body is all it takes to stop some lunatic from bringing plastic explosives onto the plane, I'm fine with that.
    People keep saying IF. What if it doesn't? I included quite a few links in my post about the efficiency of the scanners.

    Heck the last time I flew, I followed a group of nuns in habits through the scanner. If nuns don't have a problem with it, neither do I.
    They might have not even known what kind of images the scanner is able to generate. Or that they can be stored. Many people have no idea.

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    533
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zaphyre14 View Post
    I'm flying out tonight and if one TSA employee sitting in a closed booth taking a gander at a digital scan of my saggy body is all it takes to stop some lunatic from bringing plastic explosives onto the plane, I'm fine with that. It's not like they're posting the images on a big screen TV in the middle of the airport, with a bunch of people laughing and pointing. Heck the last time I flew, I followed a group of nuns in habits through the scanner. If nuns don't have a problem with it, neither do I.
    Look, it's great if you're ok with being groped and/or virtually strip-searched at the airport. More power to you. But there is a sizable population who feels totally violated by it and sees it as a complete invasion of privacy. Just because you're ok with a certain level of invasiveness doesn't mean the other point of view can simply be cast aside as unimportant.

    In fact, New Jersey state legislators are putting forward a resolution that asserts that these scanners are a 'gross violation' of the Fourth Amendment. http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/sta...rport-scanners

    I would also consider them an affront to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." We're all guilty until proven innocent these days, it seems.

    Thank you Windspirit for your thoughtful and informative posts. I also wondered what happens when scanners or the pat-downs find that a woman is wearing a sanitary pad or tampon. What kind of humiliation will have to be endured to prove they are what they are? If they're given a pass, that's an easy way to conceal something (it's long been a popular method of concealing reefer through the airports...). Are they going to search the contents of every colostomy bag that passes through security? Yeah, didn't think so.

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    with the traditionless
    Posts
    5,439
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4854
    It had never even remotely occurred to me that they would check the contents of a tampon. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on searches but if I had to do this when I flew, yeah, I would say this would have to stop. Not only for the privacy nightmare but for the increased time and hassle.

    I suspect the gov't is doing this - not so much to avoid the deaths related to a single plane explosion - but to avoid the commerce interruptions when everyone freaks out over that explosion. But having such intrusive security measures are going to have a very similar impact.
    Figure skating is hard.

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    An American Circumstance
    Posts
    4,650
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by WindSpirit View Post
    II wouldn't be surprised at all if those producing the scanners and the technology had a connection to those who make the rules about their use. It'd be just another version of Iraq and the development contracts. Follow the money.
    Well, this is exactly the case. The manufacturers of the body scanners are the ones writing the TSA policy.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...107548388.html

  13. #53
    OmnipresentAdmeanistrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    7,938
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zippy View Post
    I also wondered what happens when scanners or the pat-downs find that a woman is wearing a sanitary pad or tampon. What kind of humiliation will have to be endured to prove they are what they are?
    If that was me and they got me angry enough I could just whip it out right there. Sometimes outrage can be only fought with outrage.

    Btw, it's funny (as in scary) how fast the security checks escalate. When I read different articles before I wrote my first post in this thread, one of them from January this year ended with:

    In the US, the "pat-down" search used by security staff was derided as ineffective – because officials are forbidden from frisking sensitive areas. Analyst Michael Boyd said: "To have people hold up their arms and just pat them – like I'm really going to carry a bomb down there. You know where you're going to put it, and no one's going to go there."
    But they have already gone there. All the way.

    Invasive Groping at Airports by TSA Employees Escalating

    TSA Fondles Women and Children Refusing Airport Naked Body Scanners

    Here a woman talks about her encounter at the airport where she was "patted down" by a male TSA agent. He grabbed her crotch, cupped her breasts and tried to search her two daughters aged 8 years and 20 months. Like the guy who this thread is about said, if anyone else did that to you it would be considered a sexual assault. Even your doctor can't do that without your permission. Or your own husband. But just by buying an airline ticket we're supposedly consent to that? We waver our Constitutional rights and the right to say no to having our body exposed, possibly photographed or our genitals groped against our will? I mean, hello?

    So let's see. They lied about not being able to see details of your genitals. They lied about not being able to store images and not storing them. They lied about the pat down being performed by the same gender as the person being searched. There's been numerous examples of TSA agents not only touching, but squeezing, lifting, and twisting the genitals of passengers. One woman had a blouse pulled down and her breasts completely exposed.

    Big Sis, this is getting out of hand indeed.

    But wait. That's more. There's talk about everyone having to go through the new pat downs in the near future, if you had agreed to the naked body scan or not. Those will probably become mandatory, too.

    There are also plans to bring that technology to other places like court houses, concert and sport venues. And whatever else they think of next.

    All that information is out there, yet some people still believe when they're telling us it's for our own good. Amazing really. You know, having your physical privacy violated like this is bad enough, but it's not even the point. The point is the new invasive and degrading techniques are not really that effective in keeping us safe. Are really willing to pay such a big price for an illusion of safety?

    Quote Originally Posted by hydro View Post
    Well, this is exactly the case. The manufacturers of the body scanners are the ones writing the TSA policy.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...107548388.html
    Well, like I said it doesn't surprise me at all. They keep screaming it's about safety but it does feel more like a very thorough and forceful campaign to sell a product. And it does look like their scare tactics are working very well.

    We'll see where all those lawsuits are going. I've already lived in a country where the government could do anything to you without any consequences so again, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened here. Like I said, letting people have a peek at your nunu is not really the main problem here. The main problem is stripping you of your rights one by one and making you believe it's for your own good.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    future ex-angelino
    Posts
    778
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    185
    We'll see where all those lawsuits are going.
    and when the ACLU and the Rutherford institute are BOTH suing over the issue, maybe there's an issue.

  15. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Rejecting your reality and substituting my own
    Age
    30
    Posts
    10,871
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    "All" they'd kill? A plane full of people is still a lot of people. And there are plenty of ways to bring a plane down, and kill more people on the ground, without getting into the cockpit.

    I don't think current security, or any security, will ever be guaranteed, but I have no problem with body searches and the security checks that I have had.
    Sure, but let's be realistic. Bin Laden already succeeded going the plane route. Do you really think they'd do it again? Surely he's smarter than that - he's evaded all the US military's efforts to find him so far. The guys we've caught on planes with explosives recently were not associated with the people who brought down the WTC, just small fry crazies who you'd find pretty much anywhere if you looked hard enough.

    If someone REALLY wanted to bring down a plane, there are ways to do so without being caught with these virtual strip searches, including swallowing something or putting it up your hooha. Is that crazy? Sure it is - but you can't reason with a suicide bomber in the first place. I don't believe we should lower ourselves to try and reason with people who are THAT crazy. Lock the cockpit and allow passengers to beat up whoever's wielding a knife/gun/setting themselves on fire, and I think we'd avoid another 9/11. (It'd take a HUGE explosion to bring down a plane from the cabin, frankly. My main concern would be protecting the pilots.)

    Don't get me wrong, I don't mind people seeing me naked. (The radiation issue is something I'm more concerned about, especially for people who fly a lot like flight attendants and pilots.) My issue is how this airplane security is such a big deal and we're putting all this effort into it while ignoring other vulnerabilities, especially since I don't see how it's helping in any way.

  16. #56
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    An American Circumstance
    Posts
    4,650
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Anita18 View Post
    If someone REALLY wanted to bring down a plane, there are ways to do so without being caught with these virtual strip searches, including swallowing something or putting it up your hooha. Is that crazy? Sure it is - but you can't reason with a suicide bomber in the first place. I don't believe we should lower ourselves to try and reason with people who are THAT crazy. Lock the cockpit and allow passengers to beat up whoever's wielding a knife/gun/setting themselves on fire, and I think we'd avoid another 9/11. (It'd take a HUGE explosion to bring down a plane from the cabin, frankly. My main concern would be protecting the pilots.)
    I recently read it'd cost less money to put a Federal Marshall on every international flight entering the US than it costs for these new backscatter scanners.

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Rejecting your reality and substituting my own
    Age
    30
    Posts
    10,871
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Wheee, the Taiwanese animation news team is already on it!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBL3ux1o0tM

    I always look forward to the skewering of news via bad CG animation and good satire.

  18. #58
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Beantown
    Posts
    3,302
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I don't have much of an issue with being one of a million naked bodies that some anonymous TSA agent sees every day. I don't even mind the patdown quite so much - if I can stand to be touched by my gynecologist then I can stand this. What I do mind is that, if the goal is to deter someone from getting an explosive or weapon on the plane, neither of these methods work. And therefore, this is a waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer money which we know is just going into the pockets of some faceless politicians and higher-ups in corporate America.

    This article is a little old but it's a great account of what happens when a journalist decides to put the TSA to the test, and the results are not encouraging:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-carried/7057/

    The same guy's experience with the patdown:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...istance/65390/

    For a little levity, an idea for guys who opt out of the scanner:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...w-twist/66545/

  19. #59
    Just me
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    no place special
    Posts
    6,729
    vCash
    9350
    Rep Power
    985
    Another look at "pat downs:"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7ssGEIXRlg
    If this is to end in fire
    Then we will all burn together

  20. #60
    OmnipresentAdmeanistrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    7,938
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    California official warns against inappropriate pat-downs

    The district attorney's office in San Mateo County, Calif., warns Transportation Security Administration workers at San Francisco International Airport that anyone who inappropriately touches a passenger during a security pat-down will be prosecuted, KGO-TV out of San Francisco reports.
    It's a start. Hopefully they will be more careful.

    I hope that woman whom I mentioned before, who got searched by a male TSA officer (who grabbed her crotch and cupped her breasts, and wanted to search her two young daughters) will file a lawsuit.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •