Seriously thoughtful They are ogling our privates

[happy_terd]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100324/...in_scanner_odd

Stupid freaking airport workers already using that full body scanner to get off.

Is there nothing we can do about this invasion of privacy???

What really pisses me off is that these perverted *(@#$& are looking at people's children.




edit: at least I was angry here without threats of violence.

[poohbear_nc]

As long as terrorists (or other folk) are determined to beat airport security pat-downs, wands, etc. by stuffing explosives in their underwear (or up their ***) people that fly will be forced to put up with such idiotic behaviors among the allegedly trained staff using security devices. What's worse: a few moments of embarrassment or being blown to bits?

[happy_terd]

bullcrap. I don't buy it.


I think the problem is we are too PC to stop the same and only group that is doing this. (the little old ladies and the infants)

That underwear bomber was on a watch list to begin with And his dad called the airport with a warning. We simply failed to act. It had nothing to do with not seeing his privates on screen. It was because of the jackasses in charge of our safety simply failed. The same jackasses who wanted this scanner by the way.

[Elfwreck]

I'm waiting for the first child pornography accusations to hit over viewing of teenagers' naked bodies.

And I'm endlessly entertained by counterclaims of "if you're not doing anything wrong, of course you won't mind being visually strip-searched by airport personnel" and "having everyone viewed naked is a reasonable cost to catch the miniscule number of people attempting to do bad things."

By that logic, people should be strip-searched when they leave department stores; that would cut down on shoplifting. (The claim is that these searches are for "bombs"--but how many planes have been blown up in the last 20 years? These searches are meant to catch *drugs*, not weapons, despite the hype about safety.)

I've found my own solution: I don't fly.

And the airlines wonder why business is down.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And the airlines wonder why business is down.

I agree completely. Fewer and fewer people are willing to put up with that BS. The fact that they still have as much business as they do is very surprising to me.

[happy_terd]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

These searches are meant to catch *drugs*, not weapons, despite the hype about safety.

If that is so, isn't that a good thing?

Quite apart from the people that drugs kill, or the lives ruined of addicts, friends and family, the drug industry fuels terrorism. So... effectively...

Graham

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You don't have any constitutional rights when you're dead.

[Elfwreck]

[QUOTE=Graham;849772]If that is so, isn't that a good thing?[quote]

Only if you think it's reasonable to strip-search, say, all teenagers daily at school, in order to catch the drug traffickers, or strip-search office employees to find the ones who might have cocaine on their persons.

The problem isn't "they're using this to find drugs." (Although I have issues with a lot of the anti-some-drugs laws, too; those are separate.) The problem is that it's requiring *everyone* to give up privacy and dignity, to *potentially* catch a very few criminals. It's "guilty--or at least suspicious--until proven innocent."

And it only potentially catches them, because those who didn't hide drugs or weapons on their persons won't be caught this way. There are still ways to hide contraband in both carry-on and checked luggage, and no amount of searching is ever going to be 100% effective. AAAnd... this only catches individuals. The illegal drug *industries* don't need to sneak a quarter-ounce of white powder onto any particular airplane. To stop those criminals, you need the ability to search warehouses & shipping trucks, or impound private planes. (And for those, you need warrants.) The big criminals bypass airport security entirely.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

You don't have any constitutional rights when you're dead.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

[Greg Anos]

Maybe i should fly just to make 'em have to look at me nekkid...

Great way to torture a bureaucrat...

[dsvick]

I understand the arguments people have against this, and I've not actually seen one in action myself but from what I've seen the images are not exactly what I'd consider photo quality and would really have to leave a lot to the imagination in order for someone to get all worked up over them. Yes, there are people for whom it doesn't take much, but they most likely don't even need a scanner in the first place.

I have to ask though, what is the alternative to the scanners and increased intrusions into privacy? Ok, better training, I agree. However, regardless of the amount of training, mistakes will be made, or loopholes will be found. The scanners are the last line of defense before someone boards an airplane with a jockstrap or bra full of C4, why would we not give them every possible chance of success?

It is easy to point at the statistics and say there isn't a need for it since only x number of airplanes have ever been blown up or hijacked, but the one thing you cant say is how many *would* have been if the current security measures were not in place.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by dsvick

It is easy to point at the statistics and say there isn't a need for it since only x number of airplanes have ever been blown up or hijacked, but the one thing you cant say is how many *would* have been if the current security measures were not in place.

These measures tend to be reactive rather than proactive, so all we can safely say is that they may have stopped some copycats after they had been introduced. In the meantime, those serious about blowing up or hijacking aircraft will be working on other ways to do so.

[Katti's Cat]

Surely those looking at these xrays all day will eventually get sick of it. If I look around the streets I do see more people I DON'T want to see nekkid than those I would say 'Ok, lets have a look'.

And from what I heard, the installation of these full body scanners was initiated due to a reactive knee jerk reaction from the US government saying that only people who have been scanned this way will be admitted to the US. *Sigh* but that could be another conspiracy of course.

And all that even though it has already been proven not to be 100% foolproof.

Although I would prefer not to use those scanners - if I really can't avoid it, they deserve what they get

[wodin]

I’m reminded of while I was an adolescent, seeing a full frontal x-ray of a woman in a doctor’s office. My reaction was … well, adolescent. Fortunately I grew out of it, but I’m very aware that there are those who do not.