Thread: Full Body Scans

Refer to my post in Zeitghest ( sp? )

I haven't even said the word "conspiracy", and yet i'm labeled a conspiracy theorist by people who are told by the mainstream media that any dissension from mainline corporate news is fraudulent and "kooky."

However, I have documented my sources for every point i have made in this thread, the majority of which are themselves highly respected newspapers.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

I haven't even said the word "conspiracy", and yet i'm labeled a conspiracy theorist by people who are told by the mainstream media that any dissension from mainline corporate news is fraudulent and "kooky."

However, I have documented my sources for every point i have made in this thread, the majority of which are themselves highly respected newspapers.

Speaking of motives to form an Orwellian society in America is akin to a conspiracy theory. I don't think any of your "sources" are suggesting that.

oh lord, a tin foil hat statement, how original caprisun.

Body scan him a couple of thousand times and see how fun it is for perverted scum bag TSA douchebags look at your naked body without permission.

Better yet, how would you feel if your son or daughter of 4 years were subjected to this scan,

First off, 4 year olds and 98 year old grandparents aren't and never will be terrorists, especially if they are us citizens, 2nd how do you expect to stop terror attacks, by looking at naked old women and fat men? or how about scanning in a super model to see her boobs, oh yea their going to stop terror like that!

If I recall correctly, osama bin laden said that when the united states stops living free and changes their way of life to protect themselves while destroying our way of life, then...HE HAS WON.

It isn't a conspiracy theory, its common sense. Governments naturally try to get bigger, they naturally try to take more and more control. Everything points to this.

Our government is based on the idea that the government will grow big and try to take control of everything. Thats why we put in the seperation of power, and made three branches of government to try to stop it as much as possible.

It is also politics 101. People need issues to run on, and pretending to do something looks good, regardless of if it works or not. A lot of times its more about getting reelected than it is about improving daily lives of americans.

So when you combine the two, people always wanting to gain more power, and people trying to retain the power they already have by getting reelected, you get exactly what he said.

Originally Posted by guerilla

oh lord, a tin foil hat statement, how original caprisun.

Body scan him a couple of thousand times and see how fun it is for perverted scum bag TSA douchebags look at your naked body without permission.

Better yet, how would you feel if your son or daughter of 4 years were subjected to this scan,

First off, 4 year olds and 98 year old grandparents aren't and never will be terrorists, especially if they are us citizens, 2nd how do you expect to stop terror attacks, by looking at naked old women and fat men? or how about scanning in a super model to see her boobs, oh yea their going to stop terror like that!

If I recall correctly, osama bin laden said that when the united states stops living free and changes their way of life to protect themselves while destroying our way of life, then...HE HAS WON.

I take it you get accused of wearing a "tin hat" often? Sure I'd send my kids through these scanners, there isn't anything wrong with them. I would otherwise be a hypocrite wouldn't I?

Nobody is saying a 4 year old kid is planning to blow up an airplane. They are saying their adult supervisor could plant a bomb on their body, knowing they won't get checked by security. What good is a security system if you have loop-holes like that?

I believe Osama bin Laden's goal is to end Western civilization, not to take Americas freedom.

P.S. I have already been through these scanners, I have no problem with it.

P.S.S. I think it's shameful that you talk about TSA employees that way. They are honest people trying to make an honest living. They do as they are instructed, they don't need to take shit from you.

I think the better solution would be to drug people. Seriously, anytime anyone walks into an airport, they should just give them shrooms. And once on the plane, they should pump the cabin full of nitrous oxide. Anyone who doesn't want to be high as a kite during the whole experience probably needs his wits so he can plot something. But really, I'm only half joking. If you pump a cabin full of laughing gas during a flight, you KNOW nothing will go wrong.

Originally Posted by Alric

It isn't a conspiracy theory, its common sense. Governments naturally try to get bigger, they naturally try to take more and more control. Everything points to this.

Our government is based on the idea that the government will grow big and try to take control of everything. Thats why we put in the seperation of power, and made three branches of government to try to stop it as much as possible.

It is also politics 101. People need issues to run on, and pretending to do something looks good, regardless of if it works or not. A lot of times its more about getting reelected than it is about improving daily lives of americans.

So when you combine the two, people always wanting to gain more power, and people trying to retain the power they already have by getting reelected, you get exactly what he said.

This doesn't make sense. Are you saying that an Orwellian society is the inevitable future of any large nation?

If left unchecked, then yes. That is exactly what you would end up with. Obviously there are people who oppose it however. As long as people are opposing it, is it not inevitable.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

P.S.S. I think it's shameful that you talk about TSA employees that way.

I've already posted this, but of course you in your haste to disregard my sources without even reading them did not see it.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...-80858482.html

TSA AGENT: "I AM GOD, I'M IN CHARGE"

TSA Agent Arrested at LAX
By KIM BALDONADO and SCOTT WEBER
Updated 10:41 AM PST, Thu, Jan 7, 2010

They are the first line of defense in airport security but two troubling incidents involving TSA agents at LAX are raising concerns.

A TSA agent was arrested on January 3rd in Terminal One at LAX, a source told NBCLA. He had just gotten off duty and was behaving erratically, saying, "I am god, I’m in charge."

Meanwhile, a TSA Internal Affairs investigation turned up evidence of LAX TSA agents using drugs at an after-hours party.

TSA officials say a videotape of the party was of poor quality and the employees were not in uniform, but 4 employees were tentatively identified.

All 4 were tested for drugs. One came back positive and that employee was fired.

The Federal Security Director at LAX, Larry Fetters released the following statement:

"TSA's internal affairs team discovered video evidence that potentially depicted a few members of our workforce consuming illegal drugs. TSA management at LAX immediately identified these individuals, subjected them to reasonable suspicion drug testing and terminated the one who tested positive. TSA practices a zero-tolerance policy for illegal drug use and conducts random drug and alcohol testing at over 450 airports across the country to enforce this rule. We show no leniency to employees who violate the public trust and shame the uniform that is proudly worn by 50,000 men and women in service to this nation."

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

I've already posted this, but of course you in your haste to disregard my sources without even reading them did not see it.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...-80858482.html

TSA AGENT: "I AM GOD, I'M IN CHARGE"

Actually I did read it. This man represents all TSA employees?

It may not be that extreme in every case, but yes, generally government employees are lethargic, unproductive, and in this specific case drug-influenced.

they all are douche bags who think they are the masters of security when they are a lame joke and a disgrace to humanity. They should be herded off onto an island and fed to wild hogs along with their scumbag bosses.

...I think the generalizations and stereotypes in this thread need to come down a notch or two...

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

It may not be that extreme in every case, but yes, generally government employees are lethargic, unproductive, and in this specific case drug-influenced.

Lethargic and unproductive? Do you supervise these employees? Is it your job to evaluate their performance? Do you sit at the airport all day and judge them? My guess is that you only fly a few times a year at most and you have only been to a small percent of the world's airports. How can you seriously make such an unfair generalization and keep a straight face? Because in your personal opinion, most TSA agents are lethargic and unproductive (and one drug addict,) it is ok to call these people "perverted sum bag douchebags." That is one of the more ridiculous things you have said in this thread.

Maybe they are lethargic because they have to deal with prissy attitudes all day. You do realize these people don't make the rules don't you?

I'm not the one who called them douchebags....nice.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

I'm not the one who called them douchebags....nice.

You defended the person who did...nice.

I don't care about these scanners because I don't fly the friendly skies.

While I can, however, understand people's objections to them on the basis of privacy I think that argument stems more from the deeply ingrained idea in American culture that the body is something shameful to be hidden from all but those you are intimate with. Really I just feel sorry for the guy or gal who has to sit in that room all day and look at the crazy proportions of the modern American body.

Regarding scans of children, as long as the images are in fact being destroyed immediately after the passenger is cleared I would not consider it child pornography.

But I can almost guarantee that sometime in the future we will see some TSA employees getting in trouble for sharing the images in an inappropriate way.

In my opinion:

To say "it is not acceptable, because it is an unreasonable intrusion in ones
privacy, which needs to be protected now more then ever before" is basis
enough for a critical, but solid standpoint.

To simply write this stance off as conspiracy or paranoid behavior is laughable.

To argue that it is not acceptable on the basis of it being child pornographie
is going a little overboard - it distorts the actual issue, thus hurting the cause.
This could create a strawman that could have people dismiss the problem more
quickly. But if you are a mother of a young child, than I guess you could
have enough credibility to roll with this argument. And I'd probably think of
you as one of those parents that put their children up on a way high pedestal.

I personally don't think that airport security is full of perverts. They might be
full of humorless control-freaks, who knows, but I just don't see the issue with
some guy looking at a picture that gets deleted right away after 2 seconds.
You could argue that it is inappropriate, but child pornography,.. meh.

However... I still oppose the idea on the grounds of it being an unneccessary
intrusion into ones privacy in order to gain a minimal amount of security. That's
like one of the things you just don't do, in order to sustain a balanced democracy.

The problem here (and in many other aspects of life also) is that people get pornography and nudity mixed up as the same thing. It is not pornography unless there is something blatantly sexual and obscene about it. A full body image of someone just standing around does not qualify as pornography. Now if there was specific emphasis or focus on certain areas of the body, then it would be seen in my eyes as pornography.
But I understand these differences, and it's about time everyone else did too. With all the constant (and sometimes false) portrayals of paedophilia in the media, people are getting too over-reactive towards it and see it as a threat everywhere they go. The worst part is, people see these false and often highly innacurate depictions and choose to follow it themselves.
Every time period and culture has its fears and threats. From the middle ages onwards, it was the fear of demons and witches. In 1930s-40s onwards (and even today to some respects) there existed/exists a fear of Nazis/racialists. Today, the main fears seem to be paedophilia, terrorism and homosexuality. This is because the media blows so much about it into our minds that we begin to panic. With the exception of the Nazis, none of these objects of fear actually really existed/exists. Though the Nazi ghost has kept us from caring about our origins and cultures for over 60 years now, its about time it should be forgotten and we start anew.
In all, should these scanners be installed, I will not have a problem with them because I understand the concepts. I know this will cause much trouble for others who don't, but as long as the government is true to their word and the images are kept confedential and not exploited on the internet (like I know many things are nowadays) this should not be a problem.

Originally Posted by Well now what?

The problem here (and in many other aspects of life also) is that people get pornography and nudity mixed up as the same thing. It is not pornography unless there is something blatantly sexual and obscene about it. A full body image of someone just standing around does not qualify as pornography. Now if there was specific emphasis or focus on certain areas of the body, then it would be seen in my eyes as pornography.
But I understand these differences, and it's about time everyone else did too. With all the constant (and sometimes false) portrayals of paedophilia in the media, people are getting too over-reactive towards it and see it as a threat everywhere they go. The worst part is, people see these false and often highly innacurate depictions and choose to follow it themselves.
Every time period and culture has its fears and threats. From the middle ages onwards, it was the fear of demons and witches. In 1930s-40s onwards (and even today to some respects) there existed/exists a fear of Nazis/racialists. Today, the main fears seem to be paedophilia, terrorism and homosexuality. This is because the media blows so much about it into our minds that we begin to panic. With the exception of the Nazis, none of these objects of fear actually really existed/exists. Though the Nazi ghost has kept us from caring about our origins and cultures for over 60 years now, its about time it should be forgotten and we start anew.
In all, should these scanners be installed, I will not have a problem with them because I understand the concepts. I know this will cause much trouble for others who don't, but as long as the government is true to their word and the images are kept confedential and not exploited on the internet (like I know many things are nowadays) this should not be a problem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...can-uk-airport

"The full-body scanner on trial at Manchester airport consists of two Tardis-like blue boxes that passengers stand between and produces a ghostly naked image with curves and genitals eerily visible."

...

"But Momota Khanom, who is in her 30s, from Leeds, believes Muslim women may be concerned. "I can see why it is being introduced, to improve security, and that is absolutely fine," she said. "But for Muslim women, who dress modestly and choose not to expose themselves, it is going to be a big issue. I think it will prevent many British Muslim women travelling and they may feel imprisoned in the UK."

Not only this, but experts have said that these scanners would not even detect a device such as the one brought onto the Detroit flight.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...can-uk-airport



Not only this, but experts have said that these scanners would not even detect a device such as the one brought onto the Detroit flight.

Why do you only present links to neutral newspaper articles as your argument? None of them are aguing one way or the other. I also pulled these quotes out of that article:

"Terry Whittock, of RapiScan Systems, which produced the machine, said the Detroit bomb was "exactly the type of threat we are anticipating with the machine".

A security analyst, Chris Yates, said there was no such thing as the ultimate security device, but the body scanner provided extra capability.

"Nobody can say whether it would have prevented Detroit," he said. "But it is one more tool in the arsenal for airport security staff."

If there is anything on the surface of the body, the sanner can detect it. If they don't, it is human error.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Why do you only present links to neutral newspaper articles as your argument? None of them are aguing one way or the other. I also pulled these quotes out of that article:

"Terry Whittock, of RapiScan Systems, which produced the machine, said the Detroit bomb was "exactly the type of threat we are anticipating with the machine".

A security analyst, Chris Yates, said there was no such thing as the ultimate security device, but the body scanner provided extra capability.

"Nobody can say whether it would have prevented Detroit," he said. "But it is one more tool in the arsenal for airport security staff."

If there is anything on the surface of the body, the sanner can detect it. If they don't, it is human error.

That's the idea. If i posted links to biased articles and opinion papers I would have no chance to persuade anyone, would I? People would just scoff and say, "oh, hes just posting biased sources which makes his argument weak."

As for the statement about the scanners not being able to detect the detroit bomber, I have already posted sources that said it could not have been detected by these scans.

PS: To whichever mod renamed my thread: That was uncalled for. The main idea of the thread is that the full body scans break child porn laws in Britain, and the title was also an excellent attention grabber. My claims are not unfounded, as I have presented many sources in my thread to prove my point. Shame on you for trying to send my thread to the bottom of the stack just because you disagree with me. If this website wishes to have a free and open forum for discussion, with free speech for all the participants, then mods cannot be changing the names of people's threads in order to neutralize them. Thats called being a forum tyrant.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

That's the idea. If i posted links to biased articles and opinion papers I would have no chance to persuade anyone, would I? People would just scoff and say, "oh, hes just posting biased sources which makes his argument weak."

As for the statement about the scanners not being able to detect the detroit bomber, I have already posted sources that said it could not have been detected by these scans.

PS: To whichever mod renamed my thread: That was uncalled for. The main idea of the thread is that the full body scans break child porn laws in Britain, and the title was also an excellent attention grabber. My claims are not unfounded, as I have presented many sources in my thread to prove my point. Shame on you for trying to send my thread to the bottom of the stack just because you disagree with me. If this website wishes to have a free and open forum for discussion, with free speech for all the participants, then mods cannot be changing the names of people's threads in order to neutralize them. Thats called being a forum tyrant.

Sure, no newspaper in their right mind would print a completely biased article. What I mean is that you copy and paste a link to the article but say nothing about it. It isn't helping your case one bit. And what makes your earlier source more reliable than the ones in this article? If one of the developers said the scanner was made with threats like this one in mind, don't you think there is at least a slim chance that he would have been caught? Any person who says beyond a doubt, that these scanners would not have caught this kid is, in my opinion, not a trustworthy person. They couldn't possibly know that for sure.