Get Naked to beat the terrorists

[Maverick]

What are your opinions on the TSA full body scanners becoming more mainstream? From what I read, the scanner penetrates your clothing and shows your whole body. The image on the screen then looks like a photo negative. To address privacy concerns, TSA claims that they blur the faces and they delete the images.

Do you think these security measures are justified or an invasion of privacy?

[Cloud]

id prefer be seen in nude negatives to one person than get blown up tbh

[Sapphire]

I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, I appreciate that these scanners could help identify criminals trying to board planes and thwart their violent plans. But on the other hand, I would feel violated if I had to be scanned by one of them.

[Mzor203]

Well. In airports, you're likely already on camera, so no change there really.

"OMFG! They know what my penis looks like!"

Yeah. If you're going to raise a stink about that when people are sneaking explosives which could blow up an entire plane through, I'm sorry, but I've lost a bit of respect there.

[Sapphire]

Well. In airports, you're likely already on camera, so no change there really.

"OMFG! They know what my penis looks like!"

Yeah. If you're going to raise a stink about that when people are sneaking explosives which could blow up an entire plane through, I'm sorry, but I've lost a bit of respect there.
There is a huge difference between being on CCTV and having a full body scan that penetrates your clothes. The full body scan violates you in a way that CCTV doesn't because our bare bodies are much more personal.

[Cloud]

There is a huge difference between being on CCTV and having a full body scan that penetrates your clothes. The full body scan violates you in a way that CCTV doesn't because our bare bodies are much more personal.

so youd honestly prefer to have someone kill you and hundreds more so that no one sees your naked negative picture?

[Sapphire]

so youd honestly prefer to have someone kill you and hundreds more so that no one sees your naked negative picture?
I have mixed feelings on the use of these scanners - as I have already said.
I acknowledge that they could help protect us but I am not comfortable with the violation.

[Cloud]

I have mixed feelings on the use of these scanners - as I have already said.
I acknowledge that they could help protect us but I am not comfortable with the violation.

i can see what you mean
but in some airports over here i cant remmber which its still only optional but i cant remmber the alternative

[Mzor203]

There is a huge difference between being on CCTV and having a full body scan that penetrates your clothes. The full body scan violates you in a way that CCTV doesn't because our bare bodies are much more personal.

The point there was that having yourself on camera of any sort has no bearing in the argument as you're already on a form of camera.

What I'm saying is that, as Calum is saying, if you're fussing about someone seeing a negative image of your body, and you'd rather be blown up along with a hundred other people instead of having that picture seen for a minute and then deleted, that's rediculous.

[Sapphire]

but in some airports over here i cant remmber which its still only optional but i cant remmber the alternative
I remember reading that too.

The point there was that having yourself on camera of any sort has no bearing in the argument as you're already on a form of camera.But this is very different to CCTV and so the use of CCTV has little bearing on this.

What I'm saying is that, as Calum is saying, if you're fussing about someone seeing a negative image of your body, and you'd rather be blown up along with a hundred other people instead of having that picture seen for a minute and then deleted, that's rediculous.
This is not the only way to protect flight passengers and it wouldn't necessarily make us 100% safe either since it can't pick up on things stashed inside the body.

Btw, you mean "ridiculous"...

http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/mmw_large.jpghttp://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/backscatter_large.jpg
These are samples of the images btw.
The idea is growing on me but I'm still fairly wary about it.
You know better than to double post Carole. ~ Paula

[Sage]

Funny how more terrorists are stopped by civilians beating the shit out of them on a plain than actual airport security measures. If someone wanted to blow themselves and other people up, they don't need to go on a plain to do it. There are subways, busses, malls, other things. Airport security is a load and most of it doesn't do any good at all.

[The Batman]

It's an invasion of privacy, I get that they are trying to protect us from terrorists but really a full body cavity search on suspicious acting people, trained dogs that can sniff out any kind of explosive materials, or having better security on planes would make me feel more comfy then a full body scan.
in this article here (http://www.businessinsider.com/odds-of-a-terrorist-attack-1-in-16553385-departures-2009-12)
the odds of another terrorist attack on a commercial plane is 1 in 16,553,385 if they wanted another attack it would be easier to just get their own plane.

[Triceratops]

I really detest the idea of having my naked body scanned, as I would also feel violated. However, this system's primary aim is to help pinpoint a terrorist or any other form of criminal, which is beneficial to everyone of us. The TSA full body scanner is a bid to protect the public on a whole, so my views towards it are quite neutral - for now.

[Mzor203]

I'm sorry you expect me to be able to spell after New Year's Eve. x_x

Either way, it's an extra layer of security, and if you combine it with metal detectors, it's going to make it pretty hard to sneak much past them. Sure, it'd still be possible, but why make it any less safe? There's no reason to not have technology that will make things safer. One person is going to be seeing a negative image of your body, and then it will be deleted. It's almost like complaining about going to the doctor's, they're watching out for your well-being either way.

[Perseus]

I don't really see it as a big deal. As long as they don't strip me down in front everybody, I'm fine with it. I mean, not many people will see the full body scan.

But, I haven't heard of this, though. So I don't know much about it and other such things.

[Sapphire]

Either way, it's an extra layer of security, and if you combine it with metal detectors, it's going to make it pretty hard to sneak much past them. Sure, it'd still be possible, but why make it any less safe? There's no reason to not have technology that will make things safer. One person is going to be seeing a negative image of your body, and then it will be deleted. It's almost like complaining about going to the doctor's, they're watching out for your well-being either way.
This is a violation that gets us started on a slippery slope. To sacrifice people's rights in this manner is dangerous because of what it could lead to next.

Going to the doctors is very different to this.

[woody92]

Yes, I think that it is justified. Just because, they are measures to keep everyone safe. Weather we are on the ground, weather we are on the plane, weather we are in the airport… They are measures to keep us safe and secure. In face I will just give an example, in the next month I shall be returning back to the UK. So I ask myself these next questions: Would I like to be on a plane when there is a bomber on the plane? My answer like most is, NO! Would I prefer for the security in an airport, to do loads of checks so that the possibility, that I will be in a bomb attack are almost next to nothing? YES! So why do I think it is a good idea? Well, as if I haven’t mentioned, I think that it is for our own safety!

This is not the only way to protect flight passengers and it wouldn't necessarily make us 100% safe either since it can't pick up on things stashed inside the body.

Can you give a better way than one that is not allready being used, to detect bombs, hidden liquids and objects? Because I cant.

[Sapphire]

Yes, I think that it is justified. Just because, they are measures to keep everyone safe. Weather we are on the ground, weather we are on the plane, weather we are in the airport… They are measures to keep us safe and secure. In face I will just give an example, in the next month I shall be returning back to the UK. So I ask myself these next questions: Would I like to be on a plane when there is a bomber on the plane? My answer like most is, NO! Would I prefer for the security in an airport, to do loads of checks so that the possibility, that I will be in a bomb attack are almost next to nothing? YES! So why do I think it is a good idea? Well, as if I haven’t mentioned, I think that it is for our own safety!
So you have no problems with the direction this sacrifice of the people's rights can take us in?

[nick]

I think its a gross invasion of privacy, I don't see why any airport member of staff has the right to see my genitals. The terrorists will find some other way if they want to, this is just an attack on the liberties of ordinary people.

[woody92]

So you have no problems with the direction this sacrifice of the people's rights can take us in?

No, because it is to protect our comunity

This is not the only way to protect flight passengers and it wouldn't necessarily make us 100% safe either since it can't pick up on things stashed inside the body.

Can you give a different, or better, way than one that is not allready being used, to detect bombs, hidden liquids and objects? Because I cant.:confused:

[Sage]

Full-body scans are pointless. Seriously, now, if a terrorist is going to shove a bomb up their ass to kill a few people- you're not going to stop them. That's real dedication. As I said already, more terrorists are stopped by vigilante passengers than any automated high-tech jibba-jabba.

[Rainstorm]

Do I feel comfortable with it? No, simply because I don't want anyone besides somneone I'd be in a relationship with to see my genitalia. Yes, it does help prevent these attacks, but what are the chances that the plane flight I'm going on has a terrorist on it?

The US needs to actually follow up on leads like the ones their getting. THAT helps prevent these attacks, and it doesn't require people to be shown naked. Or, go develop some different technology to scan us.

[Sapphire]

No, because it is to protect our comunitySo I'm assuming then that you would be comfortable with the authorities telling you want you can and can't read and watch if they stated it was for the protection of your community.

Can you give a different, or better, way than one that is not allready being used, to detect bombs, hidden liquids and objects? Because I cant.:confused:
If they conducted more pat-downs then they wouldn't need to use these scanners, IMO.
Far less invasive, more dignified and still gets the job done.

[Perseus]

I think its a gross invasion of privacy, I don't see why any airport member of staff has the right to see my genitals. The terrorists will find some other way if they want to, this is just an attack on the liberties of ordinary people.

It's different than a picture and them going like, "Hurr, look at that dude's penis."
From the pictures above posted by Sapphire, it's pretty hard to see their junk like they would see it in person or something.

It's just an X-ray going through your clothes so they know you're not hiding anything. I don't see it as a huge invasion, it's a lot better than a cavirty search, in my opinion. I mean, they delete and don't keep them on storage or anything so massive amounts of people can see it. It's not as bad as you think, well I think it's not as bad as you think in that post.

[woody92]

So I'm assuming then that you would be comfortable with the authorities telling you want you can and can't read and watch if they stated it was for the protection of your community.

YES! If it helps protect us then YES!

If they conducted more pat-downs then they wouldn't need to use these scanners, IMO.
Far less invasive, more dignified and still gets the job done.

Well, ok, I dont think that thats a bad idea. However, most people in the UK especialy (no offece, I am also from the UK), would not go through with this because it envolves touching. BUT I DO THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA!;)

It's different than a picture and them going like, "Hurr, look at that dude's penis."
From the pictures above posted by Sapphire, it's pretty hard to see their junk like they would see it in person or something.

It's just an X-ray going through your clothes so they know you're not hiding anything. I don't see it as a huge invasion, it's a lot better than a cavirty search, in my opinion. I mean, they delete and don't keep them on storage or anything so massive amounts of people can see it. It's not as bad as you think, well I think it's not as bad as you think in that post.

REP+

[Perseus]

YES! If it helps protect us then YES!



Well, ok, I dont think that thats a bad idea. However, most people in the UK especialy (no offece, I am also from the UK), would not go through with this because it envolves touching. BUT I DO THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA!;)

What, so you'd let people tell what you can and cannot read? I mean, that doesn't protect you. It gives them more power over you.

[Rainstorm]

YES! If it helps protect us then YES!


There are other ways to protect the commnunity, that don't include the pictures. Yes, I know that it doesn't give a picture of the genitalia, but it still nerves me.

[woody92]

What, so you'd let people tell what you can and cannot read? I mean, that doesn't protect you. It gives them more power over you.
ok maybe not to read but definatly to see. like a film on how to create a bomb...

Anything that is PROTECTIVE I agree with!

[Sapphire]

It's different than a picture and them going like, "Hurr, look at that dude's penis."
From the pictures above posted by Sapphire, it's pretty hard to see their junk like they would see it in person or something.

It's just an X-ray going through your clothes so they know you're not hiding anything. I don't see it as a huge invasion, it's a lot better than a cavirty search, in my opinion. I mean, they delete and don't keep them on storage or anything so massive amounts of people can see it. It's not as bad as you think, well I think it's not as bad as you think in that post.It is still a violation of our rights that can be avoided.

YES! If it helps protect us then YES!Ok, why don't you try living in China?
They have heavy censorship there and I can guarantee you that they use "protection" as justification for many of the things they censor.
Once you let the authorities restrict the people's rights in the name of protection, you are on a slippery slope that could so easily lead to dangerous ground.

Well, ok, I dont think that thats a bad idea. However, most people in the UK especialy (no offece, I am also from the UK), would not go through with this because it envolves touching. BUT I DO THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA!;)I don't think that people here would have a bigger problem with pat-downs than these scanners tbh.
ok maybe not to read but definatly to see. like a film on how to create a bomb...You can read those instructions - you don't need to watch it. Hell, you can even be told how to build one - so what is the point in censoring only a third of the ways in which you can learn that?
Anything that is PROTECTIVE I agree with!And how do you know that what is being censored is truly for protective reasons and not for more political reasons?

[Perseus]

It is still a violation of our rights that can be avoided.

Ok, why don't you try living in China?
They have heavy censorship there and I can guarantee you that they use "protection" as justification for many of the things they censor.
Once you let the authorities restrict the people's rights in the name of protection, you are on a slippery slope that could so easily lead to dangerous ground.

I don't think that people here would have a bigger problem with pat-downs than these scanners tbh.

I'm actually against censorship of any kind. It's not taking away people's rights. Do you think cavaity searches take away peoples' rights since you're naked and they search you, which is worse, in my opinion, than airport security taking an x-ray picture of you.

[Sapphire]

I'm actually against censorship of any kind. It's not taking away people's rights. Do you think cavaity searches take away peoples' rights since you're naked and they search you, which is worse, in my opinion, than airport security taking an x-ray picture of you.
To conduct a cavity search, you need to have just cause to suspect that they are hiding something illegal in their body. That is very different to these scanners which, if they are to be made compulsory, violate the rights of innocent people who haven't done anything to cause the authorities to suspect them of criminal activity.

[woody92]

It is still a violation of our rights that can be avoided.

Ok, why don't you try living in China?
They have heavy censorship there and I can guarantee you that they use "protection" as justification for many of the things they censor.
Once you let the authorities restrict the people's rights in the name of protection, you are on a slippery slope that could so easily lead to dangerous ground.

I don't think that people here would have a bigger problem with pat-downs than these scanners tbh.
You can read those instructions - you don't need to watch it. Hell, you can even be told how to build one - so what is the point in censoring only a third of the ways in which you can learn that?
And how do you know that what is being censored is truly for protective reasons and not for more political reasons?

Well we obviously won’t come to understand each other’s thoughts on this particular subject.



I'm actually against censorship of any kind. It's not taking away people's rights. Do you think cavaity searches take away peoples' rights since you're naked and they search you, which is worse, in my opinion, than airport security taking an x-ray picture of you.
I think your right; I think most of the world population would object to it.

[Perseus]

To conduct a cavity search, you need to have just cause to suspect that they are hiding something illegal in their body. That is very different to these scanners which, if they are to be made compulsory, violate the rights of innocent people who haven't done anything to cause the authorities to suspect them of criminal activity.

But, how does it violate peoples' rights? It just scans you, probally(I don't know, I'm just assuming), when you walk by, or something simple, but I don't know because I don't know anything about this whole scanner thing.

[woody92]

But, how does it violate peoples' rights? It just scans you, probally(I don't know, I'm just assuming), when you walk by, or something simple, but I don't know because I don't know anything about this whole scanner thing.

It is just like an x-ray but to detect oblects on a person, not to detect broken bones, etc...

[Rainstorm]

It is just like an x-ray but to detect oblects on a person, not to detect broken bones, etc...

Just like you can't force someone to get naked without justable cause, you can't force people to get scanned and viewed by someone else naked.

[woody92]

Just like you can't force someone to get naked without justable cause, you can't force people to get scanned and viewed by someone else naked.

YES you can. Because if you dont go through the checks you dont travel, it is as simple as that!

[Rainstorm]

YES you can. Because if you dont go through the checks you dont travel, it is as simple as that!

They still have the metal detector options, and that's why they can't mandate this. People don't want to be seen naked without a reason, even if only for a split second. It may save lives, but the metal detectors can do that, as well as other methods.

[Ryhanna]

I really don't care. I mean, I can see why people would be upset over it but I just don't really care about it, myself. Yeah, they'd see my naked body for a couple of seconds to check Im not going to kill people with explosives, then they would delete the images. Not to offend people but if airports did this 10 years ago 9/11 might never have happened.

[woody92]

I really don't care. I mean, I can see why people would be upset over it but I just don't really care about it, myself. Yeah, they'd see my naked body for a couple of seconds to check Im not going to kill people with explosives, then they would delete the images. Not to offend people but if airports did this 10 years ago 9/11 might never have happened.

NO, they wouldnt see your naked body because yu can hardly see any private parts and the scans are in black and white and kind of hide your genitals etc...

[JackOfClubs]

I would rather been seen "naked" in a negative picture by one TSA agent than be strip searched because they thought I had a bomb. It doesn't really bother me.

[Rainstorm]

Also, these scans aren't going to help much. The terrorists aren't stupid, they'll manage to find a way past this. Even if it means sewing their explosives into their clothes, which isn't shown here. It shows your BODY, which nulls the point.

Then what? Are we going to be forced naked in the security line so that they can examine our clothes? Are we going to be forced to wear clothes given to us in the airport to prevent the attacks?

[Sapphire]

Well we obviously won’t come to understand each other’s thoughts on this particular subject.We won't if you don't offer up proper reasoning for your views and just dismiss mine.

But, how does it violate peoples' rights? It just scans you, probally(I don't know, I'm just assuming), when you walk by, or something simple, but I don't know because I don't know anything about this whole scanner thing.It is an invasion of our right privacy. IMO it is also an invasion of our right to dignity.
What happens is you step inside a booth type thing and the scan takes (I think) up to 15 seconds. Then someone in a remote booth has to confirm that you don't have anything illegal on your person before you can carry on going through the rest of the security process.

YES you can. Because if you dont go through the checks you dont travel, it is as simple as that!It isn't compulsory (yet) so you can travel without going through these scanners.

I would rather been seen "naked" in a negative picture by one TSA agent than be strip searched because they thought I had a bomb. It doesn't really bother me.
The alternative to the scanners isn't strip searching everyone though.

[woody92]

Also, these scans aren't going to help much. The terrorists aren't stupid, they'll manage to find a way past this. Even if it means sewing their explosives into their clothes, which isn't shown here. It shows your BODY, which nulls the point.

Then what? Are we going to be forced naked in the security line so that they can examine our clothes? Are we going to be forced to wear clothes given to us in the airport to prevent the attacks?

I think your wrong there! Because that is exactly why they are thinking of using these scanners. Have you heard about the Christmas day flight in the USA?? They reported on UK TV that he had some explosives sewen in to his UNDERWEAR. Hence why they are thinking of putting these scanners in to production!

[Rainstorm]

I think your wrong there! Because that is exactly why they are thinking of using these scanners. Have you heard about the Christmas day flight in the USA?? They reported on UK TV that he had some explosives sewen in to his UNDERWEAR. Hence why they are thinking of putting these scanners in to production!

No, I hadn't heard of it. Hence the reason I brought up the explosives being sewed in the clothes (Underwear are clothes)

If the stuff is in your clothes, the machine penetrates the clothes(and drugs) to show the body. That nullifies the use of the machine itself.

[JackOfClubs]

The alternative to the scanners isn't strip searching everyone though.
I know that, its the wand thing. But still; it doesn't really affect my flying experience, I mean, I don't think airports can get much worse :P

[Sapphire]

I know that, its the wand thing. But still; it doesn't really affect my flying experience, I mean, I don't think airports can get much worse :P
The introduction of these scanners is suspected to increase the time it takes for passengers to get through security.

[woody92]

We won't if you don't offer up proper reasoning for your views and just dismiss mine.

I dont dismiss your reasons at all I consider them.
And I try hard to express my self but u see I cant do it so well IDK!
no hard feelings at all from my part!

No, I hadn't heard of it. Hence the reason I brought up the explosives being sewed in the clothes (Underwear are clothes)

If the stuff is in your clothes, the machine penetrates the clothes(and drugs) to show the body. That nullifies the use of the machine itself.

here is some news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8436332.stm

I know that, its the wand thing. But still; it doesn't really affect my flying experience, I mean, I don't think airports can get much worse :P

I dont think they can get much worse neither!

and for anyone who want more information on the scanners here is a link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8432261.stm

[Rainstorm]

here is some news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8436332.stm



I dont think they can get much worse neither!


I hope you realize I was being sarcastic. Of course I've heard of that, which is why I brought up the clothes.

And it can get plenty worse.

[Sapphire]

I dont dismiss your reasons at all I consider them.
And I try hard to express my self but u see I cant do it so well IDK!
no hard feelings at all from my part!I'm now wondering why you can't address my points but you can address other people's points...And it can get plenty worse.
QFT!!

[woody92]

I hope you realize I was being sarcastic. Of course I've heard of that, which is why I brought up the clothes.

And it can get plenty worse.

Well no u didnt make that clear and i have a disability that i take everything litraly!
(sorry for the spelling btw)
No hard feelings!

[JackOfClubs]

The introduction of these scanners is suspected to increase the time it takes for passengers to get through security.
This sounds very extreme but; Would you rather be blown up and die, or stand in line for an extra 10 minutes knowing that the reason you are standing in line is helping to prevent in-flight disasters"

[Sapphire]

This sounds very extreme but; Would you rather be blown up and die, or stand in line for an extra 10 minutes knowing that the reason you are standing in line is helping to prevent in-flight disasters"
I would much rather wait a few minutes extra and have a thorough pat-down than this full body scan.

[Rainstorm]

This sounds very extreme but; Would you rather be blown up and die, or stand in line for an extra 10 minutes knowing that the reason you are standing in line is helping to prevent in-flight disasters"

Like I said above, the terrorists are going to find a way to bypass the scanners, and make them useless to us. Thus, the US goverment is going to force us even greater in debt by developing a new way to counter them, which they will eventually bypass.

So on and so forth.

[CaptainObvious]

This is stupid. Airport security since 9/11 has been the tail wagging the dog - terrorists try something, the TSA slaps reactionary rules on that half-assedly solve the issue while making flying more of a pain in the ass. And the pattern repeats itself here. Liquid and crystalline explosives of that size can be smuggled in body cavities, and if you put in body scanners that's just what terrorists will do. And I'm not even some Al-quaeda planning mastermind to come up with that easy method to circumvent our friendly scanners; it took me 3 seconds of thinking. Are we seriously this blind that we just slap a countermeasure on the latest thing and ignore the always-present easy ways to defeat such countermeasures?

Every time one of these restrictions goes on, people say "but it's worth it for our safety"... and every time the next attack comes from another direction. The point is, it doesn't always notably improve safety to add more hoops to jump through, and we should be thinking carefully about the effectiveness of such additions.

[Maverick]

One thing to note is this:

Last night a Manchester Airport spokesman confirmed that all staff had been told not to allow children to be scanned by the new equipment. He said: ‘Our lawyers and child welfare groups have warned us this is a legal grey area.
‘We do not want to open ourselves or our staff to the possibility of legal action, so we have decided children will not be subjected to these scans and will continue to face normal security checks.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221111/Nude-X-ray-scans-scuppered-child-porn-fears.html#ixzz0bPmO7CTn
If child porn laws prevail and under 18s can't go through a scanner, couldn't a terrorist pack a 17 year old with explosives?

[Rainstorm]

One thing to note is this:


If child porn laws prevail and under 18s can't go through a scanner, couldn't a terrorist pack a 17 year old with explosives?

Of course, a terrorist could. Which is where the flaws of this system come in.

[woody92]

Ok, why don't you try living in China?
They have heavy censorship there and I can guarantee you that they use "protection" as justification for many of the things they censor.
Once you let the authorities restrict the people's rights in the name of protection, you are on a slippery slope that could so easily lead to dangerous ground.

I know that in China, it is very strict because I myself have passed through China (although I was small) my parents have told me that security there is tight!

To conduct a cavity search, you need to have just cause to suspect that they are hiding something illegal in their body. That is very different to these scanners which, if they are to be made compulsory, violate the rights of innocent people who haven't done anything to cause the authorities to suspect them of criminal activity.

I agree that they should be used if the person has atracted atention. Howeve, on for example flights that go from one continante to another, I think it should be compulsory, because IMO they are the flights most atracted to bomber.

It isn't compulsory (yet) so you can travel without going through these scanners.
The alternative to the scanners isn't strip searching everyone though.

I know that it isnt't compulsory yet, because they are still testing them to see if they really work or not. They are being used in Big Capital airports at the moment (on a test basis).

I alos agree that the alternative to the scanners isn't strip searching everyone, because now they have machines that blow residue of the passengers and can detect weather there is a bomb or not (this was in one of the liks that i posted ealier, if i remember rightly).

The introduction of these scanners is suspected to increase the time it takes for passengers to get through security.
Yes, it is expected to increase the time it take to get through security. And in my veiw that is worse for the passengers.
I would much rather wait a few minutes extra and have a thorough pat-down than this full body scan.
This I think depends on the individual themseves.

I would just like to apologise to Sapphire publicly as I feel (and as she has expressed to me) that I have not addressed some of the comments and views she has put across. I am SORRY Sapphire! And I am sorry if I have done this to anybody else! Please PM me if I do/have done this to anyone else, as I wish that I could put things right.

RYAN (WOODY92)

[Sapphire]

I know that in China, it is very strict because I myself have passed through China (although I was small) my parents have told me that security there is tight!It is not just security that is tight. They have a very authoritarian rule that is no good for the people living there. This is where the sacrifice of human rights for "protection" can lead and alarmingly you seem to be in support of it.

I agree that they should be used if the person has atracted atention. Howeve, on for example flights that go from one continante to another, I think it should be compulsory, because IMO they are the flights most atracted to bomber.But only a small number of flights to certain continents actually attract those criminals. Can you really justify violating the rights of hundreds of thousands of people just because of their destination?

I know that it isnt't compulsory yet, because they are still testing them to see if they really work or not. They are being used in Big Capital airports at the moment (on a test basis).

I alos agree that the alternative to the scanners isn't strip searching everyone, because now they have machines that blow residue of the passengers and can detect weather there is a bomb or not (this was in one of the liks that i posted ealier, if i remember rightly).

Yes, it is expected to increase the time it take to get through security. And in my veiw that is worse for the passengers.Here we are in agreement.

This I think depends on the individual themseves.Well, that was simply my opinion.

I would just like to apologise to Sapphire publicly as I feel (and as she has expressed to me) that I have not addressed some of the comments and views she has put across. I am SORRY Sapphire! And I am sorry if I have done this to anybody else! Please PM me if I do/have done this to anyone else, as I wish that I could put things right.

RYAN (WOODY92)
Thank you, that is appreciated. No hard feelings :)

With regards to the loophole that Ant has highlighted, may be that will be enough to ensure that these scanners are never the main, compulsory security measures.

[Patchy]

Also, these scans aren't going to help much. The terrorists aren't stupid, they'll manage to find a way past this. Even if it means sewing their explosives into their clothes, which isn't shown here. It shows your BODY, which nulls the point.

It would be shown, it scans the whole body plus clothing, so say your mobile was in your pocket it would show on the scanner.


If child porn laws prevail and under 18s can't go through a scanner, couldn't a terrorist pack a 17 year old with explosives?

Most airports pat down children, when I was going through a Holland airport they asked my mums permission first.

I think a man/women patting down a child is a lot worse than a scanner giving a negative of a child which will be displayed to the security agent for no longer than 30 seconds unless a item is found. Yes they may get stored but this may stop terrorism. They might find a way round it, but its another deterrent.

[Perseus]

One thing to note is this:


If child porn laws prevail and under 18s can't go through a scanner, couldn't a terrorist pack a 17 year old with explosives?

That's not even child porn, though. Unless they are talking about people using it as that.

[woody92]

It is not just security that is tight. They have a very authoritarian rule that is no good for the people living there. This is where the sacrifice of human rights for "protection" can lead and alarmingly you seem to be in support of it.

Thank you, and yes I understand what your saying.

But only a small number of flights to certain continents actually attract those criminals. Can you really justify violating the rights of hundreds of thousands of people just because of their destination?

I think that there is a human right, to keep bombs of the planes. So yes I think that it can be justified.

Here we are in agreement.

Well, that was simply my opinion.

I am glad we have something to agree on, at long last! :P

Thank you, that is appreciated. No hard feelings :).

No hard feelings. I am glad that we have sorted out some of these issues. Please just tell me, either in a PM or on the thread itself if you feel that i am offending you or if you think I have missed something or the point of what you are trying to say. AND THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE!
Thanks
Ryan :)

[Sapphire]

I think that there is a human right, to keep bombs of the planes. So yes I think that it can be justified.This seems to be the main point on which we differ. I respect your view but, for me, it takes us too close to the slippery slope toward an authoritarian style government.

[woody92]

This seems to be the main point on which we differ. I respect your view but, for me, it takes us too close to the slippery slope toward an authoritarian style government.

Thank you. I also respect your veiw, but maybe we just might not be able to see eye to eye on this.

[Rainstorm]

I think that there is a human right, to keep bombs of the planes. So yes I think that it can be justified.


There is also the human right to privacy, and to dignity. And, once again, there are other ways to keep bombs off planes without revealing yourself nude, even if it is negative and only seen by one person.

[Wonder.]

*edited*

[woody92]

There is also the human right to privacy, and to dignity. And, once again, there are other ways to keep bombs off planes without revealing yourself nude, even if it is negative and only seen by one person.

As I have said before, I know that there are other ways. and also they cant actualy see you naked because they are black and white pictures and it is very hard to see ANYTHING AT ALL!

How do you people know for sure nobody's going to hack into the airport computers and save the pictures and release them to the public?.

Ok, you cant garentee that they wont hack in to the computers at the aairport (but they are VERY hard to hack in to), but they dont save the scans so there is nothing to brake in to on the airports system. Unless there is a way to hack in to the mind of the security gard (or policeman) that is watching the screen. lol

There's probably a million other ways to check people. I sure as hell don't want to get blown up on a plane but also I sre as hell don't want to be checked because it's against privacy laws expecially for children and I sure as hell don't want to wait another hour just to go onto a plane.

I am sure there are another MILLION ways to check people, so why dont you come up with a way?
And nor do I want to wait longer than i have to, but what other way is there, there isnt another way at the moment so we just have to be patiant. (sorry about the spelling lol)

[The Joker]

So I'm assuming then that you would be comfortable with the authorities telling you want you can and can't read and watch if they stated it was for the protection of your community.


If they conducted more pat-downs then they wouldn't need to use these scanners, IMO.
Far less invasive, more dignified and still gets the job done.

I would just like to point out that your example is really retarded.

I don't think anyone would ever find that reading a book is dangerous, so I don't think anyone would really ever consider banning that. But, being able to see if someone has weapons, that is a measure that can protect us.

[Sapphire]

I would just like to point out that your example is really retarded.

I don't think anyone would ever find that reading a book is dangerous, so I don't think anyone would really ever consider banning that. But, being able to see if someone has weapons, that is a measure that can protect us.
My example is not retarded, thank you, since it has happened before.

There is a book that details how to be a successful hitman that is banned in most developed countries because its publication saw an increase in murders. Is that not a book that has been banned for protective reasons?
The book Nine Hours to Rama was also banned in India in order to protect the identity of those responsible for the security lapses of Ghandi which allowed him to be assassinated.
Of course there are ones which have been banned for other "protective" reasons like in Nazi Germany and the USSR which served mainly to reaffirm the hold they had over the people.

I think that's my point made...

[The Joker]

Pardon the language I used, I was being a bit ridiculous with what I said.

But, I find those examples rarely lead to terrorist acts. While it may have happened a few times, it hasn't happened enough to make it worrisome. But, terrorist acts have happened enough to make it worrisome.

[Raptor22]

What are your opinions on the TSA full body scanners becoming more mainstream? From what I read, the scanner penetrates your clothing and shows your whole body. The image on the screen then looks like a photo negative. To address privacy concerns, TSA claims that they blur the faces and they delete the images.

Do you think these security measures are justified or an invasion of privacy?

No, is having doctors an invasion of privacy? Would you like to get blown up by an underwear bomb (like they tried on Christmas)? If you've got nothing to hide, hide nothing.

[Sapphire]

Pardon the language I used, I was being a bit ridiculous with what I said.

But, I find those examples rarely lead to terrorist acts. While it may have happened a few times, it hasn't happened enough to make it worrisome. But, terrorist acts have happened enough to make it worrisome.
Lol, ok you obviously need to have a look [/URL][URL="http://www.banned-books.com/bblista-i.html"]here (http://www.thebookescape.com/BannedWithReasons.html), here (http://www.banned-books.com/bblistj-z.html), here (http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm), here (http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_database/russia.html), and here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments) In China, the censorship is so tight that they can't access websites that haven't been pre-approved.

The violation of our rights in the name of "protection" is not a good thing since it puts us on the slippery slope that can lead to governments doing all sorts of things and telling us it is for the "protection" of the country including banning books like the novel Doctor Zhivago.

[Raptor22]

Lol, ok you obviously need to have a look [/URL][URL="http://www.banned-books.com/bblista-i.html"]here (http://www.thebookescape.com/BannedWithReasons.html), here (http://www.banned-books.com/bblistj-z.html), here (http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm), here (http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_database/russia.html), and here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments) In China, the censorship is so tight that they can't access websites that haven't been pre-approved.

The violation of our rights in the name of "protection" is not a good thing since it puts us on the slippery slope that can lead to governments doing all sorts of things and telling us it is for the "protection" of the country including banning books like the novel Doctor Zhivago.

Look you cant see anything:

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2009/10/91848059.jpg

[Sapphire]

Look you cant see anything:

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/io9/2009/10/91848059.jpg
You seem to mistakenly think that I don't know what is involved in these scans. Well, I do. I have also posted sample photos of the two different types of full body scans earlier in this thread.

It is still a violation of our human rights and it is still a move toward the slippery slope.

If you are still unsure or confused about where I stand, read over my previous posts as I have said this all before.

[Raptor22]

You seem to mistakenly think that I don't know what is involved in these scans. Well, I do. I have also posted sample photos of the two different types of full body scans earlier in this thread.

It is still a violation of our human rights and it is still a move toward the slippery slope.

If you are still unsure or confused about where I stand, read over my previous posts as I have said this all before.

Have fun getting blown up.

[Sapphire]

Have fun getting blown up.How very short sighted of you.

The scanners are not the only way to thoroughly search people.

As I have also said before thorough pat-down searches are preferable for me as it is less invasive, more dignified and still gets the job done.
The airports that are trialling these scanners are giving passengers the choice of the scan or a thorough pat-down so they obviously agree that it gets the job done as well as being preferable to some of their passengers.

[Rainstorm]

Have fun getting blown up.

Just because she doesn't like the scanner option, you say this?

Anywas, she's right on everything she's said so far. I'm not a big fan of the scanner either, because I don't trust many people today, and that includes Airport officals.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

well, id rather get seen naked then get blown up.

Plus this whole thing also makes check ins to planes faster.

This would also stop a lot of drug smugglers

but on the other hand, if the terrorists really wanted to blow up a plane, they could.

[Sapphire]

well, id rather get seen naked then get blown up.

Plus this whole thing also makes check ins to planes faster.

This would also stop a lot of drug smugglers

but on the other hand, if the terrorists really wanted to blow up a plane, they could.
Actually, it would lengthen the time it takes passengers to get through security and it wouldn't stop drug smugglers at all since they can hide drugs in their bodies without it being picked up by the full body scanners.

[OneManArmy]

Idc if TSA sees me naked in some negative image. But I do understand how some people may find it an invasion of privacy. But terrorists aren't dumb, they're just gonna find other ways to blow up a plane.

[Skyland]

I think it's in everyones best interests to have these scanners. You don't want to travel
with a bomb.

[The Joker]

It's not like they are going to pleasure themselves to my picture. :rolleyes:

So I couldn't care less if they see a negative picture of me, if they find it necessary to do this.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Damn them, looking at my breasts and what not. Eh, I do mind for time purposes, cause I hate spending so much time in an airport. In the end though, I think its going to work and hope it makes things better.

[Baudelaire]

Its a reality of the world we live in that we cant trust any random person, the measures seem appropriate and they are only improving security.

[Antares]

I read up about these a few months ago when they first were adding them and I still stand by them today.

If they will save my life and make it safer for everyone to travel, I would strip all the way down.

There really is no way to be offended by these new machines it seems. The person that is viewing these images is in a closed off room in another area of the airport. Yes they can see your penis/vagina but since there are 300,000,000 of us, they really won't know who you are. I honestly don't think an Airline Scanner Porn Industry will start up anytime soon.

The only thing that ticks me off a bit is that other countries still lower our level of security because their security standards aren't remotely as high as ours.

EDIT: It wouldn't really lengthen time as a whole. This still isn't required for everyone. At first they were for random passengers. Now I think that this will initially replace the actual pat-down that some people get.

EDIT: Sapphire, I think your priorities are a bit mixed up. Would you rather die, or have a semi-nude picture taken of you and other passengers to avoid the former?

[woody92]

If they will save my life and make it safer for everyone to travel, I would strip all the way down.

I would do the same, and I am in FULL support of these sacans as i have said in all my posts before.

There really is no way to be offended by these new machines it seems. The person that is viewing these images is in a closed off room in another area of the airport. Yes they can see your penis/vagina but since there are 300,000,000 of us, they really won't know who you are. I honestly don't think an Airline Scanner Porn Industry will start up anytime soon.

I agree with you here! I dont think there would be an Airline Scanner Porn Industry, because they dont save the pictures!

REP+

EDIT: It wouldn't really lengthen time as a whole. This still isn't required for everyone. At first they were for random passengers. Now I think that this will initially replace the actual pat-down that some people get.

Not at the moment no, I agree, however if everyone has to have one then yes it will affect the time it take to get through an airport!

EDIT: Sapphire, I think your priorities are a bit mixed up. Would you rather die, or have a semi-nude picture taken of you and other passengers to avoid the former?

I dont think Sapphire has her priorities mixed up. I think that she likes to have all her rights, etc... She is entitled to her opinion, and I fully respect it.

I will just say again that I am FULL SUPPORT of these scanners!

[Raptor22]

How very short sighted of you.

The scanners are not the only way to thoroughly search people.

As I have also said before thorough pat-down searches are preferable for me as it is less invasive, more dignified and still gets the job done.
The airports that are trialling these scanners are giving passengers the choice of the scan or a thorough pat-down so they obviously agree that it gets the job done as well as being preferable to some of their passengers.

Christmas underwear dipshit still got on the plane... pat downs dont work.

[woody92]

Christmas underwear dipshit still got on the plane... pat downs dont work.

Sorry Sapphire, but I agree with Raptor22 here.

[Raptor22]

Sorry Sapphire, but I agree with Raptor22 here.

Thanks woody, sorry for being an ass in the other thread... :P

[woody92]

Thanks woody, sorry for being an ass in the other thread... :P

No problem. REP+ for the appology (sorry if I spell wrong)

[Raptor22]

No problem. REP+ for the appology (sorry if I spell wrong)

No worries. :)

I just get carried away sometimes. ;)

Rep your way too. :)

[Maverick]

Back on topic please.

[Raptor22]

Back on topic please.

Apologies.

Bottom line, I would rather have someone scan a silhouette of me than get killed.

[woody92]

Back on topic please.

I am also sorry!

[CaptainObvious]

Christmas underwear dipshit still got on the plane... pat downs dont work.

Hang on, are you sure he was patted down? I've heard no proof of that.

Plus, it takes very little PETN to blow up an aircraft. So little, in fact, that enough could easily be concealed in someone's rectum. So... where does that leave our safety? We're safe, unless someone thinks of the time-honored tradition of rectal transportation? So, really, we're not much safer at all, yes?

[Ryhanna]

NO, they wouldnt see your naked body because yu can hardly see any private parts and the scans are in black and white and kind of hide your genitals etc...

DUDE! you knew what I meant

[Sapphire]

EDIT: Sapphire, I think your priorities are a bit mixed up. Would you rather die, or have a semi-nude picture taken of you and other passengers to avoid the former?I do not have mixed up priorities. Our rights are important and I will always stand by them. Other methods of security screening (thorough pat-downs) can be used and they are obviously good enough since the airports trialling the scanners are offering thorough pat-downs as an alternative without being so invasive.

Christmas underwear dipshit still got on the plane... pat downs dont work.How do you know that he was patted down?

Plus, it takes very little PETN to blow up an aircraft. So little, in fact, that enough could easily be concealed in someone's rectum. So... where does that leave our safety? We're safe, unless someone thinks of the time-honored tradition of rectal transportation? So, really, we're not much safer at all, yes?
Exactly!

[Sapphire]

I've just been reading a report on these scanners which Brown has indicated will be gradually introduced into all UK airports and the following is of particular interest.
Experts have cast doubt on whether the scanners are able to detect the type of explosive that 23-year-old Umar Abdulmutallab is accused of using in an attempt to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day.

-- From http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/03/brown-airport-security-full-body-scanners

[Raptor22]

Hang on, are you sure he was patted down? I've heard no proof of that.

Plus, it takes very little PETN to blow up an aircraft. So little, in fact, that enough could easily be concealed in someone's rectum. So... where does that leave our safety? We're safe, unless someone thinks of the time-honored tradition of rectal transportation? So, really, we're not much safer at all, yes?

I do not have mixed up priorities. Our rights are important and I will always stand by them. Other methods of security screening (thorough pat-downs) can be used and they are obviously good enough since the airports trialling the scanners are offering thorough pat-downs as an alternative without being so invasive.

How do you know that he was patted down?


Exactly!

So lets get rid of metal detectors too then because the 9/11 guys still got box cutters on the plane, none of you make any sense.

[Sapphire]

So lets get rid of metal detectors too then because the 9/11 guys still got box cutters on the plane, none of you make any sense.
Try properly addressing people's points...

[Raptor22]

Try properly addressing people's points...

Try making sense.

[Sapphire]

Try making sense.
Lol, what part of my post didn't make sense then?

[Raptor22]

Lol, what part of my post didn't make sense then?

There are scanners that are proven to detect whether liquids are hazardous or not.

[Maverick]

So lets get rid of metal detectors too then because the 9/11 guys still got box cutters on the plane, none of you make any sense.
The government and the FAA didn't explicitly ban box cutters before 9/11.

[Raptor22]

The government and the FAA didn't explicitly ban box cutters before 9/11.

I suppose thats true. I still dont see what the argument is against making sure we dont die on airplanes....

I coulnt give a shit even if the scans work only half the time, as long at it makes me safer. Another plus is decreasing wait times at airport security. :)

[Sapphire]

There are scanners that are proven to detect whether liquids are hazardous or not.
I haven't denied that.
What I have done is quoted this article which statesExperts have cast doubt on whether the scanners are able to detect the type of explosive that 23-year-old Umar Abdulmutallab is accused of using in an attempt to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day.

-- From http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-body-scanners (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/03/brown-airport-security-full-body-scanners)

[Raptor22]

I haven't denied that.
What I have done is quoted this article which states

Fair enough, I dont care really how much they do.

None of is worse than the other alternative. I think you can agree with me on that. If was killed in a terror attack I would at least want to die thinking they did everything humanly possible to stop it.

[Sapphire]

Fair enough, I dont care really how much they do.

None of is worse than the other alternative. I think you can agree with me on that. If was killed in a terror attack I would at least want to die thinking they did everything humanly possible to stop it.
If the scanners may not have picked up the type of explosive he was going to use, are they really doing everything possible by introducing these scanners?

[Richthegamer99]

INvastion of our 4 adment i don't care they should have NO RIGHT to see inder your cothes

[Rutherford The Brave]

INvastion of our 4 adment i don't care they should have NO RIGHT to see inder your cothes

That refers to when one is suspected of comitting a crime. In this case they aren't telling you they believe that you did anything. They are saying for your safety and everyone elses lets take a quick look to see if you are concealing anything dangerous. That poses a question, would you rather let them see a picture of you in your underwear. Or be killing by a terrorists? Believe me, looking at those pictures isn't as good for them as you think it is.

[cococody22]

I can see that they are trying to keep everybody safe so yes i agree, but to do a full body scan then i think they are going a bit over board but then again it is for our safety so i am in the middle about this right now but if it helps safe lives and protect the county i say to it a few extra minutes in the airport and a picture of u or 9/11 part 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You Decide

[Raptor22]

I can see that they are trying to keep everybody safe so yes i agree, but to do a full body scan then i think they are going a bit over board but then again it is for our safety so i am in the middle about this right now but if it helps safe lives and protect the county i say to it a few extra minutes in the airport and a picture of u or 9/11 part 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You Decide

Agreed.

[Sapphire]

Raptor22, it is very rude not to answer a question put to you in a debate. If the scanners may not have picked up the type of explosive he was going to use, are they really doing everything possible by introducing these scanners?

[Giles]

Simple choice...

Get blown up - Be seen naked by one person
I don't know about you, but I'd rather be seen naked.

[Raptor22]

Simple choice...

Get blown up - Be seen naked by one person
I don't know about you, but I'd rather be seen naked.

Agreed.

[Maverick]

Who says its you can't have it both ways? I for one prefer to respect peoples personal privacy and not get blown up.

[nick]

We have a society where parents are not allowed to video their childrens' nativity plays at school and yet at the same time its ok to scan those kids to see their genitals. Mixed up or what.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Who says its you can't have it both ways? I for one prefer to respect peoples personal privacy and not get blown up.

I think the safety of the masses should come first. You should have it both ways, but the government has always protected life over rights. Much like in the prohibition age, which I hate right about now.

[woody92]

I think the safety of the masses should come first. You should have it both ways, but the government has always protected life over rights. Much like in the prohibition age, which I hate right about now.

I totaly agree with you! safety should come first. It should be paramount for the goverments thats why I totaly agree with the scanners.

[Perseus]

We have a society where parents are not allowed to video their childrens' nativity plays at school and yet at the same time its ok to scan those kids to see their genitals. Mixed up or what.

One, what's a nativity play?
And two, they're not scanning it to see the person's junk. Nick, c'mon, if that was the sole reason, it wouldn't be aloud.
And three, kids don't get scanned because in Ant's way back yonder in thisn' thread post, it said something about it bein' child porn, or something, which it isn't. But anyway, that's not the point.

[Antares]

I do not have mixed up priorities. Our rights are important and I will always stand by them. Other methods of security screening (thorough pat-downs) can be used and they are obviously good enough since the airports trialling the scanners are offering thorough pat-downs as an alternative without being so invasive.

Honestly, I think that taking an image taking of my body is much better than someone feeling on me for like 20 or 30 seconds.
That's just me though.

Our "rights" whatever they may be...not to be searched for dangerous bombs?...are still in tact to an extent. Sure we can't go on a plane without security anymore and we have to be subject to searches but in times where the situation is dire and people want to kill us and security in airports is the solution, then most people are all for it because they simply want to live to see another day.

[Raptor22]

Raptor22, it is very rude not to answer a question put to you in a debate.

They do have the capability of revealing other objects hidden under the clothing or in orofices that other scan methods may miss. Always best to double check, especially with hundreds of lives on the line.

[Giles]

Who says its you can't have it both ways? I for one prefer to respect peoples personal privacy and not get blown up.

If it could happen both ways... Why haven't the already implemented whatever method would allow that to happen?

[The Batman]

The odds of another terrorist attack happening like they are trying to prevent are 16 million to one which I posted about earlier and was completely ignored. If people want to blow up the planes they will find ways around this, also you guys are waving your rights to privacy out of fear when the truth is none of this shit ever works out of all the attempted terrorist attacks the most effective way of taking them down happens on the plane so what makes you think this would have any bigger effect when people in this thread have already pointed out flaws in it?

[CaptainObvious]

They do have the capability of revealing other objects hidden under the clothing or in orofices that other scan methods may miss. Always best to double check, especially with hundreds of lives on the line.

Let me do a little thought experiment for you:

There's a small town, in ancient times, that keeps getting raided and sacked. The townspeople decide to take action to make their town more safe. They build a wall around the town, through which there is only a gate for the townspeople - at which they must spend hours to prove themselves before getting through, a huge pain and inconvenience - as well as one small cleft on the other side, that everyone knows about, that is big enough for people to enter as well, and that is unguarded.

Is the town any safer for almost walling itself off? Well yes, it's a little bit safer, but since there is still an easy way in it's not really much safer at all. And that is the point here: all that these scanners will do is make terrorists be slightly more creative with their body orifices - which the scanners cannot see, contrary to your contention - and attack that way. Thus, the scanners don't appreciably add to security, since there is a quick interchangeable attack method still available to the terrorists.

Thus, the value calculation of "would you rather be scanned or die?" is not valid, both because you were extremely unlikely before, and while you are still extremely unlikely now the scanners haven't much reduced that chance.

[Sapphire]

They do have the capability of revealing other objects hidden under the clothing or in orofices that other scan methods may miss. Always best to double check, especially with hundreds of lives on the line.When experts have openly stated that these scanners may not have detected the type of explosive he had (and therefore not prevented him getting on the plane), how valid is your argument?

He would have been stopped had the authorities handling of intelligence been better.
The Nigerian man's own father had reported him missing, informed the authorities of his son's extremist views and also stated that he was probably in the company of Yemeni terrorists.
They also had intelligence that terrorists in Yemen had a plan to bomb a plane and that they were getting an unnamed Nigerian to carry it out.
It doesn't take a genius to put these two together.

The odds of another terrorist attack happening like they are trying to prevent are 16 million to one which I posted about earlier and was completely ignored. If people want to blow up the planes they will find ways around this, also you guys are waving your rights to privacy out of fear when the truth is none of this shit ever works out of all the attempted terrorist attacks the most effective way of taking them down happens on the plane so what makes you think this would have any bigger effect when people in this thread have already pointed out flaws in it?Agreed!

[Giles]

The odds of another terrorist attack happening like they are trying to prevent are 16 million to one which I posted about earlier and was completely ignored. If people want to blow up the planes they will find ways around this, also you guys are waving your rights to privacy out of fear when the truth is none of this shit ever works out of all the attempted terrorist attacks the most effective way of taking them down happens on the plane so what makes you think this would have any bigger effect when people in this thread have already pointed out flaws in it?

If there is any chance why take the risk?

[CaptainObvious]

If there is any chance why take the risk?

Because there was a chance before, and there's still a chance after! Do you lot all not catch the fact that it's still easily possible to smuggle enough PETN in the rectum to blow up a plane? We're talking about terrorists here, if that's what they need to do they'll do it.

What's the point of a security system like this if it doesn't markedly improve security?

[Sapphire]

If there is any chance why take the risk?
Have you not read this thread properly?
The scanners are NOT foolproof.
In fact, I read somewhere that there is a 40% chance that these scanners wouldn't have been successful in catching the Christmas Day bomber.

[Modus Operandi]

In fact, I read somewhere that there is a 40% chance that these scanners wouldn't have been successful in catching the Christmas Day bomber.

I can believe that.

I really think there is a better way out there somewhere. Complete invasion of privacy. If we allow this, how far will we go sacrificing our rights for "national security"?

[Raptor22]

Have you not read this thread properly?
The scanners are NOT foolproof.
In fact, I read somewhere that there is a 40% chance that these scanners wouldn't have been successful in catching the Christmas Day bomber.

Which means that they would have had a 60% greater chance of catching him and preventing the incident.

[CaptainObvious]

Which means that they would have had a 60% greater chance of catching him and preventing the incident.

You didn't respond to my thought experiment, kiddo. If there is still an easy attack vector, how are we any safer? Terrorists aren't going to try an attack method they know will fail, they'll try the one they know will work; the next attack, if they have brains, will come with rectally-smuggled explosives. So where does that leave us?

[Raptor22]

You didn't respond to my thought experiment, kiddo. If there is still an easy attack vector, how are we any safer? Terrorists aren't going to try an attack method they know will fail, they'll try the one they know will work; the next attack, if they have brains, will come with rectally-smuggled explosives. So where does that leave us?

If they were real intelligent they would attack our power grid, or set all of our national parks on fire with small aircraft or take out minor dams at reservoirs all over the country. If they really wanted massive havoc they could easily create it.

[CaptainObvious]

If they were real intelligent they would attack our power grid, or set all of our national parks on fire with small aircraft or take out minor dams at reservoirs all over the country. If they really wanted massive havoc they could easily create it.

That's not a response to my argument. In the specific area of airplane security, all these scanenrs will do is necessitate terrorists to learn to put things up their butt. That doesn't make anyone safer, since enough explosives to blow up a plane can be carried in the rectum.

[Tiberius]

That's just disgusting that they would think of such a thing. I don't think that they should be able to effectively see me naked because some wacko Muslim might blow up a plane. I think that this is something that can be abused and exploited and therefore I am not at all in favor of this.

[Giles]

That's just disgusting that they would think of such a thing. I don't think that they should be able to effectively see me naked because some wacko Muslim might blow up a plane. I think that this is something that can be abused and exploited and therefore I am not at all in favor of this.

So you'd rather be blown to shit?

Don't even start about the chances or percentages of failure or detecion. I'm just making a point.

[Rutherford The Brave]

That's just disgusting that they would think of such a thing. I don't think that they should be able to effectively see me naked because some wacko Muslim might blow up a plane. I think that this is something that can be abused and exploited and therefore I am not at all in favor of this.

What if they have to look at someone who is morbidably obese? I understand where your coming from Chris but like I said before, not entirely sure these people are enjoying watching the view.

[Tiberius]

So you'd rather be blown to shit?

Don't even start about the chances or percentages of failure or detecion. I'm just making a point.
I'd rather get blown to hell, but that's personally what I feel. With the chances thing, the chances of me being blown-up by a raving physco is less likely than winning the mega millions...way less. I think I'll take my chances and protect my integrity.

What if they have to look at someone who is morbidably obese? I understand where your coming from Chris but like I said before, not entirely sure these people are enjoying watching the view.
I know that I don't feel comfortable of them even getting a view, but hey, that's just me.

[The Joker]

That's not a response to my argument. In the specific area of airplane security, all these scanenrs will do is necessitate terrorists to learn to put things up their butt. That doesn't make anyone safer, since enough explosives to blow up a plane can be carried in the rectum.

Exactly, it would help them learn how to get the bomb into the airport.

That's just disgusting that they would think of such a thing. I don't think that they should be able to effectively see me naked because some wacko Muslim might blow up a plane. I think that this is something that can be abused and exploited and therefore I am not at all in favor of this.

What is this with the Muslim? I'm not one of those really PC guys, but I don't like how you say that it would be a Muslim.

[Sapphire]

Which means that they would have had a 60% greater chance of catching him and preventing the incident.
My point is that there is still room for failure. Our rights would be invaded for hardly any improvement in safety since some explosives won't be detected and they can always insert explosives into their body cavities.

And these terrorists are Islamists, not Muslims.

[Tiberius]

Exactly, it would help them learn how to get the bomb into the airport.



What is this with the Muslim? I'm not one of those really PC guys, but I don't like how you say that it would be a Muslim.
Oh no, forgive me, it's the Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists that blow the fuck out of people for Allah. How silly of me to think that only Muslims don't like to land planes...


...You're shitting me, right? I've never seen a Christan man stick 80 grams of explosive powder in his pants and try to blow a plane up with it or seen the same Christian man crash a plane into the World Trade Center because his crucifix was stuck too far up his ass and he thought Jesus was telling him sadistic things... Have you?
Taste the bitter fruit of TRUTH.

[Antares]

What is the difference with showering with other people in gym class and getting scanned by a security scanner for weapons that could lead to 'mass destruction'?

Hopefully you people that are saying they are against the scanners also have a problem with being forced to strip and shower with many other kids in the presence of teachers?

If you do, then I think theres a problem...

[Rainstorm]

What is the difference with showering with other people in gym class and getting scanned by a security scanner for weapons that could lead to 'mass destruction'?

Hopefully you people that are saying they are against the scanners also have a problem with being forced to strip and shower with many other kids in the presence of teachers?

If you do, then I think theres a problem...

Not all of us are forced to take showers in school

[Perseus]

Not all of us are forced to take showers in school

He's using that as an example.

It's the same thing, in reality. People are seeing you naked, but it's not in x-ray form.

[Antares]

He's using that as an example.

It's the same thing, in reality. People are seeing you naked, but it's not in x-ray form.

Yep, QFT.

Some people are forced to shower, and if people don't mind that but are opposed to these simple scanners, theres a problem :P

[Rutherford The Brave]

Oh no, forgive me, it's the Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists that blow the fuck out of people for Allah. How silly of me to think that only Muslims don't like to land planes...


...You're shitting me, right? I've never seen a Christan man stick 80 grams of explosive powder in his pants and try to blow a plane up with it or seen the same Christian man crash a plane into the World Trade Center because his crucifix was stuck too far up his ass and he thought Jesus was telling him sadistic things... Have you?
Taste the bitter fruit of TRUTH.

I've seen christian men, kill hundreds and possibly thousands of African Americans unjustly, I've seen christian men kill millions of people to create a master race. Point is, its not just the muslims that do stuff that is crazy. Also they are not the only ones who kill for what they believe is religiously right.

[Antares]

Oh no, forgive me, it's the Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists that blow the fuck out of people for Allah. How silly of me to think that only Muslims don't like to land planes...


...You're shitting me, right? I've never seen a Christan man stick 80 grams of explosive powder in his pants and try to blow a plane up with it or seen the same Christian man crash a plane into the World Trade Center because his crucifix was stuck too far up his ass and he thought Jesus was telling him sadistic things... Have you?
Taste the bitter fruit of TRUTH.

What?!
So you are saying that Christians don't kill people.

Take a history course. Anywhere. On any era or portion or place. Then you'll get some insight.

Christians are definitely! not angels.
They do as much stupid stuff as any other religion.
And they're extremely hypocritical.

[Tiberius]

I've seen christian men, kill hundreds and possibly thousands of African Americans unjustly, I've seen christian men kill millions of people to create a master race.
Really, Greg? When did you see thousands to hundreds of thousands of black people get killed by Christian men, when? When did you see NAZIS, FUCKING NAZIS AND NOT CHRISTIANS kill millions of people to create a master race? Am I missing some huge damn piece of the pie here?

What?!
So you are saying that Christians don't kill people.

Take a history course. Anywhere. On any era or portion or place. Then you'll get some insight.

Christians are definitely! not angels.
They do as much stupid stuff as any other religion.
And they're extremely hypocritical.
Point is, its not just the muslims that do stuff that is crazy. Also they are not the only ones who kill for what they believe is religiously right.
I never said that Christians didn't kill people, so guys, please stop putting words in my mouth when you have my QUOTE RIGHT THERE. I was merely stating the fact that Christians aren't known to put explosives in the panties and crash planes into buildings. However, if that happens often, I'd love to hear about it.

[Raptor22]

My point is that there is still room for failure. Our rights would be invaded for hardly any improvement in safety since some explosives won't be detected and they can always insert explosives into their body cavities.

And these terrorists are Islamists, not Muslims.

My point is that there is a chance of success. What is the chance of success without the scanners? 0%, what is the chance with the scanners? 60%. I reckon ima take the 60% chance of not dying. And yes they are Muslims, Islamic Extremist Muslims.

[Antares]

Okay, I will rephrase a little since you don't take broad generalizations like others do ;)

WHAT!?

You actually think christian people don't blow stuff up!?!?!?

Look, obviously you think that muslims are the only people that do stupid stuff for their religion.
Apart from the fact that its wrong, its complete bigotry.

Really, Greg? When did you see thousands to hundreds of thousands of black people get killed by Christian men, when? When did you see NAZIS, FUCKING NAZIS AND NOT CHRISTIANS kill millions of people to create a master race? Am I missing some huge damn piece of the pie here?

Umm, can you say United States History for 2,000! For nearly 200 f******* years black men were being killed left and right by supposed christian men. Not sure how you missed that one...its pretty important.

Nazis although they were not particularly christians, they still lived and were upheld by christians from Germany. Both Protestants and Catholics. So it wouldn't be a far leap to say that the people that made up the nazi party, were at their base, christian imo.

Anyways, a piece of pie is missing. Its called morals.

[Raptor22]

Okay, I will rephrase a little since you don't take broad generalizations like others do ;)

WHAT!?

You actually think christian people don't blow stuff up!?!?!?

Look, obviously you think that muslims are the only people that do stupid stuff for their religion.
Apart from the fact that its wrong, its complete bigotry.



Umm, can you say United States History for 2,000! For nearly 200 f******* years black men were being killed left and right by supposed christian men. Not sure how you missed that one...its pretty important.

Nazis although they were not particularly christians, they still lived and were upheld by christians from Germany. Both Protestants and Catholics. So it wouldn't be a far leap to say that the people that made up the nazi party, were at their base, christian imo.

Anyways, a piece of pie is missing. Its called morals.

Right but that has nothing to do with airport security because I have not heard of a christian Al Queda member hijacking a plane...

[The Batman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Um yea...

[Raptor22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Um yea...

Can you help me find the part where they hijack planes? Im having trouble finding it.

[Antares]

We went off on a tangent. Of course, overwhelmingly muslim radicals target airplanes and hijackings and such but that does not mean that:
A. A christian has never done it
B. A christian will never do it
C. Christinans and other religion dont have fucked up people that do stupid shit
(sorry for language :P)

[The Batman]

Can you help me find the part where they hijack planes? Im having trouble finding it.

If you look on the side where it says types of tactics it lists "Aircraft Hijacking"

[Raptor22]

We went off on a tangent. Of course, overwhelmingly muslim radicals target airplanes and hijackings and such but that does not mean that:
A. A christian has never done it
B. A christian will never do it
C. Christinans and other religion dont have fucked up people that do stupid shit
(sorry for language :P)

Right. Understood but the main individuals that engage in that type of behavior are people who are Islamic extremists. Its like trying to figure out who has the biggest chance of having a meth lab, the shady young guy that doesnt seem to ever leave but has people over all the time next door, or the little old lady across the street. Im not saying that there has never been a little old lady with a meth lab, im saying that we are identifying the groups that create the most risk.

If you look on the side where it says types of tactics it lists "Aircraft Hijacking"

You have an example in the last 30 years of a religiously motivated Christian hijacking?

[The Batman]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dc5_1252645122
http://www.prlog.org/10346231-confused-christian-pastor-hijacks-plane.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article659427.ece

Happy?

[Antares]

That is true but the only reason we are talking about this is because chris said that you never see christians blow themselves and others up. That is not true. We all know that.

I think there were some undertones that christianity was better than other religions which isn't true either

[Tiberius]

Again, I can't see anywhere that a Christian crashed a plane into a building because he was compelled by the word of God. Gentlemen, that's what I was talking about. Jeez, read what I said...

to John:
Originally posted by: Tiberius
I was merely stating the fact that Christians aren't known to put explosives in the panties and crash planes into buildings.
Was that not clear enough for you?

[Raptor22]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dc5_1252645122
http://www.prlog.org/10346231-confused-christian-pastor-hijacks-plane.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article659427.ece

Happy?

None of those had anything do do with targeting the US.

[CaptainObvious]

Really, Greg? When did you see thousands to hundreds of thousands of black people get killed by Christian men, when?

Ever heard of the KKK?


When did you see NAZIS, FUCKING NAZIS AND NOT CHRISTIANS kill millions of people to create a master race? Am I missing some huge damn piece of the pie here?

Hang on, why do Nazis not count as Christian yet these terrorists count as Islamic? Most Nazis below the leadership were not particularly well-versed in the religious motivations some of their leaders used for these atrocities, but contrary to popular belief most Muslim terrorist footsoldier types aren't either. Mostly they're disaffected angry young man inculcated with propaganda against America and Israel, with a little topping of Islam to make the whole thing religiously legitimate.

I never said that Christians didn't kill people, so guys, please stop putting words in my mouth when you have my QUOTE RIGHT THERE. I was merely stating the fact that Christians aren't known to put explosives in the panties and crash planes into buildings. However, if that happens often, I'd love to hear about it.

Uhhh, last I checked 9/11 happened once, and this underwear thing happened once too. So, unless that's "often" in your books, Muslims aren't known for this kind of thing often either...

[The Batman]

None of those had anything do do with targeting the US.

Dude you're adding shit that you didn't mention the first time. You didn't ask for links of them targeting the US so why bring it up now? You said Christians don't hijack planes and I provided links saying they did.

[Raptor22]

Ever heard of the KKK?




Hang on, why do Nazis not count as Christian yet these terrorists count as Islamic? Most Nazis below the leadership were not particularly well-versed in the religious motivations some of their leaders used for these atrocities, but contrary to popular belief most Muslim terrorist footsoldier types aren't either. Mostly they're disaffected angry young man inculcated with propaganda against America and Israel, with a little topping of Islam to make the whole thing religiously legitimate.

In fascism religion was warped to exclude all things related to Jews and to other "inferior" races. The terrorists are the same way, the majority of muslims are peaceful, its the few that mess it up. I can agree with the last sentence, however who gives a fuck. We still need to prevent the deaths of Americans.



Uhhh, last I checked 9/11 happened once, and this underwear thing happened once too. So, unless that's "often" in your books, Muslims aren't known for this kind of thing often either...

They are known for highjacking planes and crashing them into things or using them for political gain. Much more than christian terror groups are.

Dude you're adding shit that you didn't mention the first time. You didn't ask for links of them targeting the US so why bring it up now? You said Christians don't hijack planes and I provided links saying they did.

Well this is a thread about United States airport security...it was kind of a given.

[Tiberius]

Uhhh, last I checked 9/11 happened once, and this underwear thing happened once too. So, unless that's "often" in your books, Muslims aren't known for this kind of thing often either...

Well, thank you for targeting my posts.
Hate to tell you, but Muslims are known for hijacking planes and terrorism. Don't know what you've heard in Canada, but the whole crashing planes into buildings thing, it happened more than once. Just thought you might want to know before you sound ignorant....

[Raptor22]

Well, thank you for targeting my posts.
Hate to tell you, but Muslims are known for hijacking planes and terrorism. Don't know what you've heard in Canada, but the whole crashing planes into buildings thing, it happened more than once. Just thought you might want to know before you sound ignorant....

lol...

People on this site are so narrow minded sometimes like they have horse blinders on and suppose the strangest things, like Christian terrorism is as big of a problem as Muslim terrorism and that because of that we shouldnt protect our airports... like what the fuck?

[CaptainObvious]

Hate to tell you, but Muslims are known for hijacking planes and terrorism.

Wow, you're bigoted. Making a blanket statement like that about members of a massive worldwide religion is the height of ignorance.

Maybe you could tell us what in your esteemed view Jewish people are known for? Killing Jesus, loving money, secretly plotting world takeover through the banking system?

Also: list the many incidents other than 9/11 of Muslim hijackers crashing planes into buildings, if you wouldn't mind.

[The Batman]

lol...

People on this site are so narrow minded sometimes like they have horse blinders on and suppose the strangest things, like Christian terrorism is as big of a problem as Muslim terrorism and that because of that we shouldnt protect our airports... like what the fuck?

In which of my posts did I say anything like that?

[Raptor22]

Wow, you're bigoted. Making a blanket statement like that about members of a massive worldwide religion is the height of ignorance.


Maybe you could tell us what in your esteemed view Jewish people are known for? Killing Jesus, loving money, secretly plotting world takeover through the banking system?


Come on. Most of the terrorism prevalent in the middle east and targeted towards the United States and our allies comes from Islamic Extremist (Muslim) terrorist groups. Can we at least have a legitimate discussion without beating around the bush and playing this Politically Correct bullshit. Really, its getting rather old. Its also rather off putting that you think you know it all and you come off that way, and just as a little wake up call, you dont.

Jews arent trying to attack the United States and kill Americans in order to go meet Allah, the prophet Muhammad, and get 72 (most likely male) virgins...

[Tiberius]

Maybe you could tell us what in your esteemed view Jewish people are known for? Killing Jesus, loving money, secretly plotting world takeover through the banking system?
Maybe you should think and shut you mouth before speaking seeing as how I am half JEWISH. Way to go on that one. Anti-Semitic jerk...

[Raptor22]

Maybe you should think and shut you mouth before speaking seeing as how I am half JEWISH. Way to go on that one. Anti-Semitic jerk...

I am half-jewish also, I second that statement.

[CaptainObvious]

Maybe you should think and shut you mouth before speaking seeing as how I am half JEWISH. Way to go on that one. Anti-Semitic jerk...

Ah good, so now you see how bigoted your statement was.

Still waiting on that list of other Muslim hijackers crashing planes into buildings on days other than 9/11/2001...

[Tiberius]

Ah good, so now you see how bigoted your statement was.

Still waiting on that list of other Muslim hijackers crashing planes into buildings on days other than 9/11/2001...

Wait, how was my statement bigoted? Did I ever mention Jews and Jewish-related insults like you?

Air France Flight 8969 was a pretty fucking close attempt to destroy the Eiffel Tower and there are other attempts that have killed people in the process.

[CaptainObvious]

Wait, how was my statement bigoted? Did I ever mention Jews and Jewish-related insults like you?

No, you mentioned Muslims, and Muslim-related insults. One can be bigoted against groups other than Jews.

And for the record, I condemn all bigotry, including that which I posted to illustrate yours to you. I in no way agree with those stereotypes, but it seems logical that you should since you so enthusiastically embrace stereotypical bigotry when it comes to Muslims.

Air France Flight 8969 was a pretty fucking close attempt to destroy the Eiffel Tower and there are other attempts that have killed people in the process.

That's the best you can do? Then your statement:

but the whole crashing planes into buildings thing, it happened more than once.

is false, as it has happened once. It has been planned twice. That's a far cry from "Muslims are known for crashing planes into buildings", which is why your statement was such unadulterated bigotry.

[Raptor22]

No, you mentioned Muslims, and Muslim-related insults. One can be bigoted against groups other than Jews.

And for the record, I condemn all bigotry, including that which I posted to illustrate yours to you. I in no way agree with those stereotypes, but it seems logical that you should since you so enthusiastically embrace stereotypical bigotry when it comes to Muslims.



That's the best you can do? Then your statement:



is false, as it has happened once. It has been planned twice. That's a far cry from "Muslims are known for crashing planes into buildings", which is why your statement was such unadulterated bigotry.

Muslims are known for islamic extremist terrorism. They were also responsible for the London and Spain subway bombings and bombings of multiple embassies and the highjackings of multiple aircraft. They have also been known to take hostages and sometimes even cut their head off on camera (Daniel pearl anyone?), please show me a time where christians or jews have done and of those lately or killed as many people as Islamic extremest terror groups have in the last 35 years.

[Tiberius]

No, you mentioned Muslims, and Muslim-related insults. One can be bigoted against groups other than Jews.

And for the record, I condemn all bigotry, including that which I posted to illustrate yours to you. I in no way agree with those stereotypes, but it seems logical that you should since you so enthusiastically embrace stereotypical bigotry when it comes to Muslims.



That's the best you can do? Then your statement:



is false, as it has happened once. It has been planned twice. That's a far cry from "Muslims are known for crashing planes into buildings", which is why your statement was such unadulterated bigotry.
Let's look at this one, 9/11 had three incidents of planes being crashed into three separate buildings. So yeah, it's happened more than once.

Now, I have reasons for disliking Muslims. One, they managed to kill over 3,000 AMERICANS in one fucking day, while I was watching. That kinda etched a hatred into my brain when, myself, as an 8 year old saw that- I tend to not like people who kill Americans. Next, I'm half Jewish- there's a big, big hatred that I have experienced first hand and through the "indoctrination" from my family.

[Raptor22]

Let's look at this one, 9/11 had three incidents of planes being crashed into three separate buildings. So yeah, it's happened more than once.

Now, I have reasons for disliking Muslims. One, they managed to kill over 3,000 AMERICANS in one fucking day, while I was watching. That kinda etched a hatred into my brain when, myself, as an 8 year old saw that- I tend to not like people who kill Americans. Next, I'm half Jewish- there's a big, big hatred that I have experienced first hand and through the "indoctrination" from my family.

I dont have hatred against all Muslims, just ones that seek to harm our country and us.

[Sapphire]

My point is that there is a chance of success. What is the chance of success without the scanners? 0%, what is the chance with the scanners? 60%. I reckon ima take the 60% chance of not dying. And yes they are Muslims, Islamic Extremist Muslims.Actually, there was a great chance of stopping him due to the rather conclusive intelligence that the authorities had. All they had to do was connect two pieces of intel together and pull him over at the terminal to question and search him.
How is that a 0% chance of stopping him without these scanners?

Now, I have reasons for disliking Muslims. One, they managed to kill over 3,000 AMERICANS in one fucking day, while I was watching. That kinda etched a hatred into my brain when, myself, as an 8 year old saw that- I tend to not like people who kill Americans. Next, I'm half Jewish- there's a big, big hatred that I have experienced first hand and through the "indoctrination" from my family.You don't have the right to hate a huge group of people for what a minority have done. It's not fair or accurate.

[CaptainObvious]

Let's look at this one, 9/11 had three incidents of planes being crashed into three separate buildings. So yeah, it's happened more than once.

That's a counting distinction. 3 buildings, 3 planes, 1 attack. Your choice how to count it, but your insinuation that occurrences of Muslims hijacking planes other than 9/11 exist is false.

Now, I have reasons for disliking Muslims. One, they managed to kill over 3,000 AMERICANS in one fucking day, while I was watching. That kinda etched a hatred into my brain when, myself, as an 8 year old saw that- I tend to not like people who kill Americans. Next, I'm half Jewish- there's a big, big hatred that I have experienced first hand and through the "indoctrination" from my family.

Well, I'm glad you admit your bigotry. With time, I'm sure you'll be able to get over your irrational dislike of people who are associated with these terrible attacks in no way other than their religion.

[Raptor22]

Actually, there was a great chance of stopping him due to the rather conclusive intelligence that the authorities had. All they had to do was connect two pieces of intel together and pull him over at the terminal to question and search him.
How is that a 0% chance of stopping him without these scanners?

Well, you said that they would have had a 40% chance of him getting thru with these scanners. That means there was a 60% chance of catching him with these scanners. Whats the chances of catching a guy without using the scanners? 0%....


You don't have the right to hate a huge group of people for what a minority have done. It's not fair or accurate.

[Tiberius]

That's a counting distinction. 3 buildings, 3 planes, 1 attack. Your choice how to count it, but your insinuation that occurrences of Muslims hijacking planes other than 9/11 exist is false.



Well, I'm glad you admit your bigotry. With time, I'm sure you'll be able to get over your irrational dislike of people who are associated with these terrible attacks in no way other than their religion.

This is going to be the last post like this, please get back on topic(myself included) or the thread will be locked.

BTW: He had the last word.

[Sapphire]

Well, you said that they would have had a 40% chance of him getting thru with these scanners. That means there was a 60% chance of catching him with these scanners. Whats the chances of catching a guy without using the scanners? 0%....
I was pointing out that these scanners are not the way to go forward since they invade our rights and offer no guarantees of safety.
Improving the way the authorities handle intelligence and introducing more strict checks on connections of passengers to terrorist groups will yield better results with regard to our safety than these scanners.

[Blank]

they're probably sick of looking at negative naked bodies

[Tiberius]

I was pointing out that these scanners are not the way to go forward since they invade our rights and offer no guarantees of safety.
Improving the way the authorities handle intelligence and introducing more strict checks on connections of passengers to terrorist groups will yield better results with regard to our safety than these scanners.

quote FTW! Thank you, Carole. Finally something that we see eye-to-eye on.

[CaptainObvious]

I was pointing out that these scanners are not the way to go forward since they invade our rights and offer no guarantees of safety.
Improving the way the authorities handle intelligence and introducing more strict checks on connections of passengers to terrorist groups will yield better results with regard to our safety than these scanners.

I agree with your first statement, yet with regard to the second, I'm not sure I'd be inherently more comfortable with massive background checking than I am with someone seeing a negative of me naked. I dunno... the Devil's Advocate argument here is, are you all so incredibly frightened by the idea of someone seeing a negative of your naked body? I don't like these scanners because they don't really improve security in exchange for the privacy violation, but I'm not so sure it's such a horrible abrogation of bodily sovereignty.

Not that I really care about background checks, I'm a member of NEXUS, a US-Canadian Trusted Traveler program, and so have had simultaneous CSIS and FBI background checks and am obviously completely clean. As an interesting side effect of which, by the way, I no longer ever get flagged for additional screening at American airports when that used to happen all the time.

[Sapphire]

I agree with your first statement, yet with regard to the second, I'm not sure I'd be inherently more comfortable with massive background checking than I am with someone seeing a negative of me naked. I dunno... the Devil's Advocate argument here is, are you all so incredibly frightened by the idea of someone seeing a negative of your naked body? I don't like these scanners because they don't really improve security in exchange for the privacy violation, but I'm not so sure it's such a horrible abrogation of bodily sovereignty.

Not that I really care about background checks, I'm a member of NEXUS, a US-Canadian Trusted Traveler program, and so have had simultaneous CSIS and FBI background checks and am obviously completely clean. As an interesting side effect of which, by the way, I no longer ever get flagged for additional screening at American airports when that used to happen all the time.
We have thorough criminal record checks carried out by law in order to be able to carry out certain jobs (working with children, for example). I hardly see how applying a similar system to passengers of aircraft is so different.

[Perseus]

What is the difference with showering with other people in gym class and getting scanned by a security scanner for weapons that could lead to 'mass destruction'?

Hopefully you people that are saying they are against the scanners also have a problem with being forced to strip and shower with many other kids in the presence of teachers?

If you do, then I think theres a problem...

Y'all kinda ignored John's post with y'alls giant argument...

[Sapphire]

To address John's post then.

We were only made to shower for the first year I was at secondary school. But I had a huge problem with it then and I would have a huge problem with it now.
Most of the people in my year felt the same and we all had our ways of avoiding stripping down. In fact, I don't believe a single person showered naked the whole time I was there.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Come on. Most of the terrorism prevalent in the middle east and targeted towards the United States and our allies comes from Islamic Extremist (Muslim) terrorist groups. Can we at least have a legitimate discussion without beating around the bush and playing this Politically Correct bullshit. Really, its getting rather old. Its also rather off putting that you think you know it all and you come off that way, and just as a little wake up call, you dont.
Jews arent trying to attack the United States and kill Americans in order to go meet Allah, the prophet Muhammad, and get 72 (most likely male) virgins...

Not all extremists are muslims. The underwear bomber was from an African country and had never heard of the religion. While yes he was part of the group and he did say that he would do as they asked him. Its rather odd putting to go off topic. It is also offputting to rally for a guy who has already served two terrible terms.

[Sapphire]

Not all extremists are muslims. The underwear bomber was from an African country and had never heard of the religion. While yes he was part of the group and he did say that he would do as they asked him. Its rather odd putting to go off topic. It is also offputting to rally for a guy who has already served two terrible terms.
Actually, he was a radical Muslim. He had attended university in London which is where they suspect he was radicalised.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Actually, he was a radical Muslim. He had attended university in London which is where they suspect he was radicalised.

yeah that was my bad saw it on the news like 5 mins ago XD. Still my point stays valid, not all extremists are muslims, and not all muslims are extremists.

[Sapphire]

not all extremists are muslims, and not all muslims are extremists.
That is very true.

[Raptor22]

Not all extremists are muslims. The underwear bomber was from an African country and had never heard of the religion. While yes he was part of the group and he did say that he would do as they asked him. Its rather odd putting to go off topic. It is also offputting to rally for a guy who has already served two terrible terms.

Actually I believe he was a great thing for this country, and would vote for him in 2012 but of course he is intelligible. Al Queda is a group consisting of islamic extremist muslims.

That is very true.

Yes it is, but the terrorists with deep hatred for the United States, the west, and freedom and democracy are traditionally the middle eastern variety.

Of course I realize there are other kinds of terrorists, they just dont traditionally try to blow up planes in/over the United States:

I realize we have:

Ecoterrorists
Them crazy guys in Northern Ireland
The KKK
Skinhead Neonazis

Not all terrorists are Islamic, but the ones that present the most risk to our nation, are.

[Sapphire]

Yes it is, but the terrorists with deep hatred for the United States, the west, and freedom and democracy are traditionally the middle eastern variety.

Of course I realize there are other kinds of terrorists, they just dont traditionally try to blow up planes in/over the United States:

I realize we have:

Ecoterrorists
Them crazy guys in Northern Ireland
The KKK
Skinhead Neonazis

Not all terrorists are Islamic, but the ones that present the most risk to our nation, are.Why are you going off on a tangent like this at me? Lol. All I did was agree with the statement that not all terrorists are Muslims and that not all Muslims are terrorists. I never said anything about which group of extremists pose the greatest threat to the USA.

[Antares]

Wow.
Wtf.
First off to address the statement that Carole made that Chris agreed with (dont feel like quoting)

I was pointing out that these scanners are not the way to go forward since they invade our rights and offer no guarantees of safety.
Improving the way the authorities handle intelligence and introducing more strict checks on connections of passengers to terrorist groups will yield better results with regard to our safety than these scanners.

Yea, okay. I agree somewhat. I agree that we need to improve the way that autorities handle intelligence, and more strict checks for even connecting flights.
However, I think in the present, we need to be cautious on many many different fronts because one is bound to fail and we need everything we can to back up the other.
So with the scanners, we are able to add one more layer of security (above the intelligence, and connecting flights, etc.).
Now you said you were fine with the patdowns earlier but I think that is more invasive to our privacy than the scanners. And the scanners are more effective because you can see, rather than attempt to feel.
Finally, I think the scanner will eliminate, the strip searches that randomly occur. That is like...beyond for me and for everyone else I have talked to that has had it done.

I think also what we should focus on is improving security in other lesser known countries rather than just focusing on American Airports.


Well, I'm glad you admit your bigotry. With time, I'm sure you'll be able to get over your irrational dislike of people who are associated with these terrible attacks in no way other than their religion.

I doubt it...

[Sapphire]

Wow.
Wtf.
First off to address the statement that Carole made that Chris agreed with (dont feel like quoting)

Yea, okay. I agree somewhat. I agree that we need to improve the way that autorities handle intelligence, and more strict checks for even connecting flights.
However, I think in the present, we need to be cautious on many many different fronts because one is bound to fail and we need everything we can to back up the other.
So with the scanners, we are able to add one more layer of security (above the intelligence, and connecting flights, etc.).
Now you said you were fine with the patdowns earlier but I think that is more invasive to our privacy than the scanners. And the scanners are more effective because you can see, rather than attempt to feel.
Finally, I think the scanner will eliminate, the strip searches that randomly occur. That is like...beyond for me and for everyone else I have talked to that has had it done.The arguments I have seen against our current security checks are that there is room for human error. People have heralded these scanners as the way to make us all safer by eliminating that error. In the course of this thread, we have demonstrated that there is still room for error and room for terrorists to work around it.

I would rather have a pat-down (which I have had before) since it isn't as much of a violation as the scanners which produces a naked (albeit slightly altered) image. (I thought that much was clear)

Strip searches are not random btw. They have to have reasonable cause to suspect you of criminal activity to be able to strip search you.

I love how this technology was developed and not put into practice because of the human rights violations. Then we have another attempt and suddenly they are the best way to keep us all safe and are not a significant threat to our rights...

I think also what we should focus on is improving security in other lesser known countries rather than just focusing on American Airports. Israel have possibly the best passenger security system in the world and they do not have these scanners.
But India are getting them, the Netherlands have them and Brown is introducing them. They all the ones I know off the top of my head.

[zacharooo]

I kind of like it. I think its a step more into security, America really can't handle anymore terrorist crap. So for the whole entire past 9 years that we have been slacking, its time to step it up to another lever.

[Sapphire]

I kind of like it. I think its a step more into security, America really can't handle anymore terrorist crap. So for the whole entire past 9 years that we have been slacking, its time to step it up to another lever.
Considering the flaws which have been highlighted, how do these scanners make you more secure?