This galls me, but I agree with Lieberman about the full-body scanners

[Recursion]

This really isn't what we need to be worked up over (especially since the whole point is to avoid physical pat-downs, which are a lot more invasive of privacy, at least to me).

No, they aren't perfect. But they are pretty damn good. What are people so (#*$ing worked up about?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I winder if they will ever have one like this?

[NJmaverick]

2. I don't see a real issue with them

I think they beat the alternative of way to intimate pat downs.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. Besides, the scanners will not be able to detect an explosive dildo

That's not too much of a stretch either, since people transport drugs that way already.

[Recursion]

9. I said, "Not perfect"

Yes, the next crotch bomber can shove some explosives up his ass. But that's a lot harder to do, and unless you're Rick Santorum you can't fit nearly as much explosives in your ass as you can in your clothes. And the more notorious mule trick of swallowing bags of stuff doesn't work very well for explosives at all (you really don't want to expose your detonator to a lot of acid).

So, yes, keep on-the-ground intel vigilant and remember this isn't a panacea, but a TSA employee seeing a computer mockup of the shape of my body really isn't a "privacy" issue to me, or at least not one worth caring about this much.

[guitar man]

39. That's probably why Lieberman likes them

He's been the number one explosive dildo for quite a while, so with the current scanners he'll have no problem boarding :silly:

[dkf]

4. How's about tracking people who meet with al queda first?

Yeah that would be good.

[Don Caballero]

5. I think they are a great tool to stop terrorists

Although I would not limit them to airport use. Anywhere masses of people gather these should be utilized. The terrorists will begin to go after soft targets such as malls and sporting events. These scanners could really be useful to stop an attack there.

[rcrush]

8. No thanks.

I would like to go out in public without being strip searched.

[Don Caballero]

10. England is already doing random searches on the street to stop terrorism

Our authorities should follow their example as they have not had an incident in years.

[rcrush]

13. England is also a police state.

Not someplace I want to live.

[Don Caballero]

14. I would not go as far as calling them a police state

They just really care about the security of their democracy and the safety of their civilians.

[ZombieHorde]

50. "They just really care about the security of their democracy and the safety of their civilians."

Creepy.

[KamaAina]

17. Uh, yeah, well, four and a half years, maybe

since the Underground bombings.

Scotland had a guy drive into an airport even more recently.

[Don Caballero]

18. The Brits seem welcoming to the surveillance systems and heavy police presence

They understand that it is being done in their best interests. You do not see Brits out in the street protesting "big brother" policies.

[rcrush]

20. UK police dont exactly like protesters

[Lex]

21. They were ok with monarchy rule too. nt

[rurallib]

35. This would be OK with you?

Sounds like Nazi Germany to me.
Lately a little phrase keeps running through my head - "Who watches the watchers?"

[Don Caballero]

38. President Obama would bring much better oversight than the Shrub

[Raineyb]

43. Not the point.

If something is wrong it's wrong it doesn't become right because you trust the current administration eventually you'll end up with an administration you DON'T trust. Will you still be saying that should a Republican end up in the White House again?

[Recursion]

11. *shrug* in 5 years there will be sunglasses with these scanners installed

At least, if I know anything about marketing and libido, there will be.

[rurallib]

34. I used to see them advertised on the back of comic books in the '50s

every teenage male's fondest wish.

[rcrush]

6. The pat down is already an alternative to the body scanner

In some air ports where they have the scanner you have the right to refuse and go to the pat down. I dunno but I think I would choose the pat down over the naked scanner.

[tabatha]

7. See

http://www.independent.com/news/2010/jan/08/airline-explosive-thwarted/

[tekisui]

12. What will a full body scanner find that

isn't detected with current protocols? Would it have helped with the undie-bomber?

[Recursion]

15. Thought experiment: what if I owned one of these scanners?

Could I point it out my window at people walking by?

[SargeUNN]

16. follow the money as well

Look who will make a bundle off it. How does Mike Chertoff sound? Yep, he is one of the major people to make a fortune off it. Also, have you done the research on these machines? They have a very bad record and have even been a contributor to child porn. In several countries they have been discarded because they are so unreliable.

[Lex]

19. Was the panty bomber allowed to board without correct paperwork?

Maybe we should start there first.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. People are worked up about at least these things

1) Privacy. Just because you and some others thinks it's no biggy to you doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate objection. Pat downs are considered less invasive by some because they're done by touching clothing, not skin.

2) Health risk. This one may have no basis in fact because of the levels and type of radiation, but many people are fearful nonetheless.

3) A bad investment in security theater when used as a primary screening device -- it will require a lot of resources to implement for TSA and makes the process of clearing security slower and more off-putting for many passengers, all with little promise of deterring a terrorist act.

[rcrush]

23. It makes me not want to fly anymore

Next time I need to travel I'm seriously considering the train or Greyhound now. Or just drive.

[Gormy Cuss]

30. I don't fly anymore if ground travel would take less than a day.

I'm someone who loved to travel by air and had a job with frequent flying trips. Over the years I observed many security changes and made it a habit to adapt to meet whatever new requirements were added. I arrived at the airport informed and ready to cooperate even when I thought the security change was nonsense (everyone removing shoes, for example.) No more. I'm drawing the line with full body imaging.

[Recursion]

24. The bad investment argument I agree with, but there are much worse investments being made

If we spent a tenth of the money we spend on gadgets on El Al-style behavioral analysis instead, we'd be much safer. But given that we're going to spend money on gadgets, this is one of the better ones in a lot of ways.

[Gormy Cuss]

26. But why AREN'T we spending it on emulating El Al?

Too often it seems the reason is that the gadget makers have better lobbyists.

The imaging machines have a legitimate place as secondary screening devices but the push to make them primary screeners makes me want to follow the money.

[Recursion]

28. Why are we spending so much on vaccines for Africa when clean water would save more lives?

We're a gadget- and drug-obsessed culture.

[DireStrike]

25. How are they "pretty damn good"?

If there is any substance they can't detect, terrorists will find out and use that. Or, as mentioned in another thread, simply swallow it or otherwise insert it.


Millions and millions of dollars spent to do NOTHING to stop terrorism, and a lot to let security thugs look at your naked, irradiated body.

"Pretty damn good." Lol.

[Myrina]

27. Why not just use sniffer dogs?

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

33. butt sniffers

lol

[guitar man]

40. exactly

if we're expecting more undie bombers, I have one they can hire out, she's quite the crotch sniffer :rofl:

[thereismore]

29. Maybe we should have these and then go through a body cavity search.

:sarcasm:

Or, let's just skip the scanners.

[Recursion]

32. I don't get your point

You're bringing up body cavity searches as a way of dismissing a process that is much, much less invasive. I don't understand what you're getting at.

[thereismore]

47. The point is, after we install the scanners, they will use body cavities to hide stuff.

Then what.

[HughMoran]

31. Your invitation to the disintegration machines is in the mail

:silly:

[Raineyb]

36. People are getting worked up because they DON'T detect the explosives

they can't detect things stuck in orifices and they're expensive as hell for shit that doesn't work. But you can be ogled by some fuckwit behind a screen. Gee I can't imagine WHY people would be upset.

Oh and BTW, you do know that that Skeletor looking son of a bitch Chertoff has a financial interest in the company that makes the scanners that he's been going on the TV touting right?

This foolishness hasn't a damn thing to do with terrorism but it's another handy excuse for some well connected people to make money off the taxpayers. Again.

[AzDar]

37. * Insert Benjamin Franklin quote here*

:patriot:

[seabeyond]

41. when these were first talked about, everyone said no way. wont happen. against law

no way, no how. and lookie.

they arent gonna take care of the problem, not even kinda. not the underwear guy, the very person we are using for reason to do this.

now, when they want you to bend over to check you inside, remember, no way, they arent gonna have you do this. this really is an INVASION. of privacy.

or will you be the one to say, ...."What are people so (#*$ing worked up about?"

how about if i just see you as cowardly willingly giving up rights that should be protected and allowing u.s. to slip more and more away from our consititution.

and you will sit in fine company with those that say "What are people so (#*$ing worked up about?" when it comes to illegal torturing, nsa spying and all the many illegal acts our govt have implemented for your benefit to give you the illusion of safety.

[Michigan-Arizona]

45. You summed it up quite nicely seabeyond

Land of the free & home of the brave hey!

[Nye Bevan]

42. They really don't bother me

Of course if I was fat or under-endowed I would probably think differently. As well as stopping pants bombs there should be the additional upside of giving people the incentive to stay in shape.

[iris27]

49. Right, because no one can tell I'm fat as long as I have

my clothes on? :eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

44. The former Homeland Security Chief (Skeletor) has millions invested in this ...

type full body scanner, so this will WORK to fill his bank account. ;silly:

[Nikki Stone1]

46. Let us know when they measure your penis with it

:rofl:

[NoPasaran]

48. For the life of me

I don't understand why we don't just equip TSA with those nifty X-Ray specs you used to be able to order out of comic books.

[LisaL]

51. It's an invasion of privacy.

And for what purpose? Will these scans even pick up the kind of explosives the underwear bomber was supposed to have been using?

[iris27]

52. People are so (#*$ing worked up because it's yet one more hassle and

one more invasion of privacy that wouldn't even have caught the guy they're using as the excuse to force this on us. The tradeoff of # attacks likely to be averted by this method vs. the freedom and privacy we are being asked to give up is NOT worth it.