Full Body Scans

Utterly pointless. I've said for years that the current security system has a glaring weakness; it's perfectly possible hide stuff within one's own body. It makes me laugh when I go through the metal detectors when I can think of many ways to get around it if I were so inclined.

Even these new scanners don't have any impact on that. And how many people in their right mind would submit to a complete strip search before getting on a plane?

Same with the ban on liquids. Ignoring the fact it's perfectly possible to do plenty of damage within the limits, it completely ignores the fact that multiple passengers can carry the material to make an explosive device on.

The whole thing is a joke. There are far easier ways to kill more people and inspire terror.

Quote:

---

The worst part of this illogical, overly irrational fear of terrorist attacks on planes is that more people will opt for driving instead of flying. Right after 9/11, in which almost 3,000 people died, the majority of Americans traveled by car and airports were almost completely empty.

---

People are generally stupid, easily manipulated, and unwilling or unable to think for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

I've never read a more ignorant, sensationalist statement unsupported by any facts whatsoever on the internet.

It is statistically proven to be far more dangerous to ride in a car than to ride in a plane. In fact, the most dangerous thing about riding a plane, even with the absolute worst case scenarios of how often terrorist attacks could supposedly happen, is the drive to the airport. Yet we don't feel emotionally overwhelmed by the concept of dying in a car crash, because it happens every day and we're around cars, riding or driving cars all the time.

The worst part of this illogical, overly irrational fear of terrorist attacks on planes is that more people will opt for driving instead of flying. Right after 9/11, in which almost 3,000 people died, the majority of Americans traveled by car and airports were almost completely empty.

In an amazing book called The Science of Fear, it states calculations that even if terrorists were hijacking and crashing one passenger jet a week in the United States, a person who took one flight a month for a year would only have a 1 in 350,000 chance of being killed in a hijacking, against the 1 in 6,000 chance every year of being killed in a car crash.

In the year following September 11th, when everyone was driving, there were 1,595 car fatalities, which is 6 times more deaths than anyone who died on flights on 9/11, and 319 times more deaths than the anthrax attacks in 2001.


But congratulations, Caprisun. You're an emotionally manipulated, thoughtless sheep controlled by political pundits and the government, like a pawn on a chessboard. They're playing you like a piano beautifully.

This whole full body scanner, in my opinion, is at the least a waste of money that could be spent on much more effective ways to prevent terrorism and national security instability, a direct affront of constitutional rights to privacy, and a gross overreaction and tool of control. Our childish paranoia has just gone WAYYY too far this time. In unguided fear, we lose human rights left and right.

---

Haha. What? Because it is more likely that you will die in a car accident than a plane crash, body scanners are wrong? That is some of the most screwed up logic I have ever heard. Why are you even talking about car accidents anyways? You can't play the statistics game here. It doesn't matter if the odds are one in a billion, it isn't acceptable. As for unguided fear, does it look I am running around with my hair on fire? I haven't proposed anything that wasn't within reason.

Thanks for the history lesson though, we can pretend that I didn't already know all of that.

I have spent the last two years studying this very subject. Plane hijackings are nothing knew and only because our airports take drastic security measures are we able to be lulled into a sense of security. As long as air travel has been popular, planes have been hijacked periodically. This is an ongoing struggle that has only recently gotten attention because of 9/11. But the main struggle of the FAA isn't against the hijackers and their conniving schemes to bring weapons aboard an airplane, it's the people like you. The C.A.V.E. people (Citizens Against Virtually Everything.) They think their freedom is at risk everytime the government proposes a new security measure, which is meant to protect you by the way. Does that sound paranoid to you? It does to me. They aren't implanting bar codes on the back of your neck for christs sake! They want to make sure you don't bring a gun on the plane. It is such a small sacrifice to make for such an important cause. All it takes is another attack for the people, you included, to be right back up the FAA's ass, asking why did this happen? Why didn't our security stop this? Security in American airports is even a bit lacking in areas. The airline with the best security record, El Al from Israel, uses blatant profiling to sift out the most likely hijackers. This works great for them and they don't even try to keep it a secret. Terrorists have basically given up trying to hijack El Al planes because they know it is impossible. That should be the goal of American airports. Israel is still a free country, their people aren't "mindless sheep." We could learn a lot from El Al but the C.A.V.E people would never stand for it. All of this in light of little Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to blow up a Northwest flight not even two weeks ago.

"I've never read a more ignorant, sensationalist statement unsupported by any facts whatsoever on the internet."

Really? That was the most sensationalist statement you've ever read? Did you read the title of the thread? It says "Child porn is now acceptable when its the government doing it." Take the blinders off Deery!

"But congratulations, Caprisun. You're an emotionally manipulated, thoughtless sheep controlled by political pundits and the government, like a pawn on a chessboard. They're playing you like a piano beautifully."

You know me so well! You gathered all that from one phrase? (Who's they? Big brother? They watch everything we do you know.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

They want to make sure you don't bring a gun on the plane.

---

Metal detectors (the two tall panels that would beep obnoxiously if you had
your keys on you) never had a problem picking up guns. These scanners are
probably for things like spraying devices and wooden shanks.

Man sometimes i think people high up in government and Security are just fucking Schizophrenic... i mean all of them. They want to check childrean for weapons.

THIS IS MADNESS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It doesn't matter if the odds are one in a billion, it isn't acceptable.

---

That pretty much sums it up right there. Extreme propaganda and fear mongering. If you fear something that has a one in a billion chance of happening, then you likely have an extreme mental disorder that far surpasses any normal phoba.

No sane person, would ever fear anything that has odds that low. That is like carrying around a steel umbral, and claiming its to help protect you meteroites. Then saying, "It is better safe than sorry." I guarantee you, nearly everyone would think you are insane.

So why is it okay, to act insane and illogical when it comes to 'terrorism'? We shouldn't be doing all that is possible to protect us. We should be doing all reasonable things in order to protect us. If its not reasonable or logical, then what the heck is the point in doing it?

By the way, what part of "An anonymous man by himself in a private room looking at your naked picture" is supposed to make people feel better? If anything, being anonymous and in a room by himself, only makes it sound more creepy.

@ Caprisun - I happen to have edited that line for a reason. Keep the nonconstructive personal insults out of this thread. Don't edit it again.

Anyone who feels the need to do that will receive an infraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Utterly pointless. I've said for years that the current security system has a glaring weakness; it's perfectly possible hide stuff within one's own body. It makes me laugh when I go through the metal detectors when I can think of many ways to get around it if I were so inclined.

Even these new scanners don't have any impact on that. And how many people in their right mind would submit to a complete strip search before getting on a plane?

Same with the ban on liquids. Ignoring the fact it's perfectly possible to do plenty of damage within the limits, it completely ignores the fact that multiple passengers can carry the material to make an explosive device on.

The whole thing is a joke. There are far easier ways to kill more people and inspire terror.



People are generally stupid, easily manipulated, and unwilling or unable to think for themselves.

---

That's basically what I thought. Truly motivated terrorists will get around it somehow. The next thing that they're going to do is start shoving sticks of dynamite or folding ceramic knives up their asses. They're going to make everybody take two shits before boarding a plane when this new "terror threat" arises, and nobody is going to submit to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Man of Shred

Man sometimes i think people high up in government and Security are just fucking Schizophrenic... i mean all of them. They want to check childrean for weapons.

THIS IS MADNESS!

---

They've gotta be kinda mad when they're competing with people just as mad.

Flying is already expensive and troublesome enough. This will only excerbate the problem. People are going to be more hesistant to fly, airlines will go bankrupt...again and will be bailed out...again. Isn't government intrusion in the market place grand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

As uneasy as I am about admitting full-body scanners into mainstream institutions like airports, I think making "child pornography" claims is going a bit overboard.

---

why so, the scanner takes naked images, not to mention lets out ionizing radiation similar to x-rays which in the long term can cause cancer, either way these scanners are total bollocks.

The makers of the machines even claim the scanners cannot see more then 2-3 inches past the skin, so if some really determined fool had a bomb really far in his you know what, the scanners would not detect it.

Not to mention the amsterdam airports had body scanners before the underwear bombers......

They obviously didn't catch that guy did they with the scan?


I'm taking a car drive instead of airports from now on, im not letting some perverted tsa douchewads look at me naked...they have no fcking right to see me naked.


I say no to scanners, let a drug/bomb dog sniff me, dogs can detect smells from many many meters away, scanners are fucking useless

DOGS MY TSA DOUCHEBAG FRIENDS!

#1

Dogs are cheaper to 'buy'

#2 nobody get exposed to radiation or photographed naked.

#3 Who doesn't trust a dog's nose

#4 nobody has to be violated

#5 a dogs nose can detect explosives faster than an incompetent tsa human dumbass looking at a picture of me naked.

(for all we know people with pacemakers and abnormally large prostates are terrorists now?) (thats what the nutjob security thinks)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

That pretty much sums it up right there. Extreme propaganda and fear mongering. If you fear something that has a one in a billion chance of happening, then you likely have an extreme mental disorder that far surpasses any normal phoba.

No sane person, would ever fear anything that has odds that low. That is like carrying around a steel umbral, and claiming its to help protect you meteroites. Then saying, "It is better safe than sorry." I guarantee you, nearly everyone would think you are insane.

So why is it okay, to act insane and illogical when it comes to 'terrorism'? We shouldn't be doing all that is possible to protect us. We should be doing all reasonable things in order to protect us. If its not reasonable or logical, then what the heck is the point in doing it?

By the way, what part of "An anonymous man by himself in a private room looking at your naked picture" is supposed to make people feel better? If anything, being anonymous and in a room by himself, only makes it sound more creepy.

---

I don't think anybody is actually afraid when they fly unless they have some kind of phobia. This isn't a campaign of control. Tell me what you think they would accomplish with that? What is the motivation behind such a campaign?

"So why is it okay, to act insane and illogical when it comes to 'terrorism'? We shouldn't be doing all that is possible to protect us. We should be doing all reasonable things in order to protect us. If its not reasonable or logical, then what the heck is the point in doing it?"

Scanning people for weapons isn't reasonable? If the old system was fool proof and fully efficient, we wouldn't need to update it.

"By the way, what part of "An anonymous man by himself in a private room looking at your naked picture" is supposed to make people feel better? If anything, being anonymous and in a room by himself, only makes it sound more creepy."

Would you rather it be a person you did know, out in the open, looking a picture that everyone can see? The point of the security guard being behind a closed door isn't just so no other travelers can see your picture. It is because there are no faces on the pictures. If the guard doesn't see the people in person, they have no way of identifying any single individual. The guards mother could walk through the gate and they wouldn't recognize her. Then the picture is immediately deleted after you pass. It is as if it never happened. Is it really something to be freaked out about? Or are you just being difficult?

Scanning people isn't unreasonable. Saying that privacy automatically takes a backseat to security, regardless of the actual results, is totally unreasonable however.

Giving up any level of privacy for a .0001 percent increase in security or whatever is just stupid though. People want real results. Unless there is a significan increase in the level of security, no one is going to give up their privacy for it. The problem is people lose a lot of privacy, and gain little or no security, and that is why they might complain about this.

As for the securty guard, there should at least be two or three people there. That isn't nearly as creepy, if there are people watching the others.

Some old guy shoves a camera up a random kid's skirt and takes a picture before running off.

This is perfectly acceptable as the guy never actually harmed the kid. It is as if it never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Some old guy shoves a camera up a random kid's skirt and takes a picture before running off.

This is perfectly acceptable as the guy never actually harmed the kid. It is as if it never happened.

---

Are you even trying to present this seriously as an analogy? When you purchase a plane ticket, you are agreeing to undergo the security procedures attendant with boarding a plane. It's not some random, unexpected attack. The procedures are not undertaken for anyone to get a prurient thrill (you can object to frisking on the same grounds), but to screen those with criminal tools and intent to do harm. In the case of these scanners, no permanent record is produced and all observation is made in an egalitarian and anonymous manner.

Just how titillating do you think it would be to be handed a pair of x-ray specs and forced to examine every passerby in an American airport?

lmao I heard something the other day about how the majority of suicide bombers were 12-18 years old.

Ingenious.

It's a serious analogy to the ridiculous philosophy of 'if some guy who you don't even know is the only one who sees it and only for a little bit then it's fine'.

Nothing you're saying makes any sense.

No, when I purchase a plane ticket I am paying for a journey on a plane. How the hell does the fact that I may want to use a plane at some point in the future mean I'm not allowed to complain about an invasion of privacy introduced by my government?? If this measure is installed then the only way of mantaining privacy would be to not use planes. I'm not allowed to complain about that..?

And when was I complaining that the measures were being installed for immoral reasons?? Obviously they're being installed for security, that's not the issue. But how would you control who got the job? Indeed there's many people who'd object to anybody having the job; I wouldn't mind so much, but what about all the people who are more private? Do they no longer have the right to fly? Would you really not object if I were able to magically show somebody a naked picture of you for a brief time?

And anyway; this whole thing is so ridiculously misplaced when known terrorists can still board a plane with a bomb after showing their passports! Don't you think some more investment in basic communication is required before we spend billions on this technology??

This is such a quick and efficient way of keeping the airport secure. Its a shame people have dignity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

It's a serious analogy to the ridiculous philosophy of 'if some guy who you don't even know is the only one who sees it and only for a little bit then it's fine'.

Nothing you're saying makes any sense.

No, when I purchase a plane ticket I am paying for a journey on a plane. How the hell does the fact that I may want to use a plane at some point in the future mean I'm not allowed to complain about an invasion of privacy introduced by my government?? If this measure is installed then the only way of mantaining privacy would be to not use planes. I'm not allowed to complain about that..?

And when was I complaining that the measures were being installed for immoral reasons?? Obviously they're being installed for security, that's not the issue. But how would you control who got the job? Indeed there's many people who'd object to anybody having the job; I wouldn't mind so much, but what about all the people who are more private? Do they no longer have the right to fly? Would you really not object if I were able to magically show somebody a naked picture of you for a brief time?

And anyway; this whole thing is so ridiculously misplaced when known terrorists can still board a plane with a bomb after showing their passports! Don't you think some more investment in basic communication is required before we spend billions on this technology??

---

I agree with you that this technology is probably overreach in the wrong direction, just not for reasons of privacy, morality or personal liberty. There's nothing inherently pornographic about nude images of people, even if they're photorealistic, which these are not. I don't think you need to worry that much about screening these employees; I have trouble believing the "I want to see hundreds of vague, nude-like images of a wide cross-section of the populace for thirty seconds each, every single day" fetish is all that widespread. Even if one were inclined to get a thrill out of any of these images, that impulse would be seriously muted by the requirement to examine ALL of the images and keep the line moving. So yes, the brevity and distance do undercut the "perv" objection.

They also cover the privacy objection. If the image is unidentifiable, immediately erased, and the "guy in a room" never lays eyes on you, what aspect of your privacy has been compromised? No one can ever associate that image with you, or view it for other than the stated purpose.

As for personal liberty, a large part of the point of this procedure is to make it easier to fly, replacing more time-consuming and less egalitarian methods. You agree to the "Terms of Service" when you buy your ticket, and they've always included more stringent security measures than other modes of travel. There's good reason, not only for the safety of passengers, but because of the impact of air disasters on the industry, international economics and diplomacy, and of course the possibility that the plane itself will be employed as a weapon. There are a lot of factors to consider when looking at air travel vs. other means, and if the prospect of someone, somewhere, briefly seeing an image derived from your willy is a dealbreaker, then yes, YOU have made the decision that you can't get on a plane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I agree with you that this technology is probably overreach in the wrong direction, just not for reasons of privacy, morality or personal liberty. There's nothing inherently pornographic about nude images of people, even if they're photorealistic, which these are not. I don't think you need to worry that much about screening these employees; I have trouble believing the "I want to see hundreds of vague, nude-like images of a wide cross-section of the populace for thirty seconds each, every single day" fetish is all that widespread. Even if one were inclined to get a thrill out of any of these images, that impulse would be seriously muted by the requirement to examine ALL of the images and keep the line moving. So yes, the brevity and distance do undercut the "perv" objection.

They also cover the privacy objection. If the image is unidentifiable, immediately erased, and the "guy in a room" never lays eyes on you, what aspect of your privacy has been compromised? No one can ever associate that image with you, or view it for other than the stated purpose.

As for personal liberty, a large part of the point of this procedure is to make it easier to fly, replacing more time-consuming and less egalitarian methods. You agree to the "Terms of Service" when you buy your ticket, and they've always included more stringent security measures than other modes of travel. There's good reason, not only for the safety of passengers, but because of the impact of air disasters on the industry, international economics and diplomacy, and of course the possibility that the plane itself will be employed as a weapon. There are a lot of factors to consider when looking at air travel vs. other means, and if the prospect of someone, somewhere, briefly seeing an image derived from your willy is a dealbreaker, then yes, YOU have made the decision that you can't get on a plane.

---

Very well said. Much more eloquent than I could have put it. :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

Not to mention the amsterdam airports had body scanners before the underwear bombers......

They obviously didn't catch that guy did they with the scan?

---

Before Christmas, the Amsterdam airport the hijacker went through did not have full body scanners for the American terminals.

quality CP rite there.
[/sarcasm]

I really really dont get the fuzz about these scanners.
I mean come on, the images are sooo bad, and it's only one person that's going to be looking at them, and if he's getting off to any of them (child or adult alike) then he is doing his job wrong, and should be fired either way.

Come on.

I bet these scanners give off radiation and in 30 years, if the scanners become commonplace, we'll all have cancer.

:cookiemonster:

Of course they give off radiation. Anything that involves sending energy through a persons body(in this case to take an image) is done with radiation. In other words, all image scanning devices use radation.

It is just a matter of the amount. In this case, it is just a surface scan and only goes through a few layers of clothing. Since the radation shouldn't be going very far into your body, it probably isn't a lot.

Probably not a big risk. Though if you were someone who flies more than once a year, I would be worry. Regardless of what the airport might say about the level of radiation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Of course they give off radiation. Anything that involves sending energy through a persons body(in this case to take an image) is done with radiation. In other words, all image scanning devices use radation.

It is just a matter of the amount. In this case, it is just a surface scan and only goes through a few layers of clothing. Since the radation shouldn't be going very far into your body, it probably isn't a lot.

Probably not a big risk. Though if you were someone who flies more than once a year, I would be worry. Regardless of what the airport might say about the level of radiation.

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you think getting an MRI will give you cancer too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Unlike CT, it uses no ionizing radiation, but uses a powerful magnetic field to align the nuclear magnetization of (usually) hydrogen atoms in water in the body.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

It's dangerous if the radiation is ionizing. At the most, getting one of these scannings is like standing in the sun for maybe 5 minutes without clothes on.

The Full Body Scanners in airports are using strong radiowaves. You know what is constantly passing through your entire body, all the time? You got it, radiowaves.

lol I wonder how many of the naked pictures can the security guard handle. Somewhere down the road it just has to leak you know. If i were (example) to look at a hot latina while sitting behind that room watching her completely naked ... you know what would happen, copies copies ...print ...... and who knows what

I would never let them see my siblings who are underage go trough that scan, nor would I ever look at younglings/adults trough those retarded scans. That is purely privacy invasion , I agree with most of the posts in this thread, and the youtube video link ... this has to be stopped or else I will never take a flight ever again :(