TSA full body scanners at airports.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Jouett
 


Where did I say that I worked for them? I said we were SUBCONTRACTED to them, and I was there when they were testing the machine in the early days.

Did you even ONCE try to find out the rules for this system? It took me less than two minutes to find how they're going to use them.




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Are you trying to say it's as simple as not having children go through the scanner? Kind of defeats the purpose now doesn't it, when drug smuggling mom can stuff her kiddo's "crack" with crack and breeze right through...

Not to mention, how is my privacy invaded any less just because they didn't "strip search" my child?

Research prior to posting is a good idea, I'll give you that. But common sense comes before even research. Next time, see if you can muster some up before telling someone to think before they post.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


ANY passenger can look at the screener and say "I'm not going through this machine." and they can't be forced to go through it. They will be patted down in a private room.

The TSA and screeners aren't there to stop drugs. When I was a screener years ago, we were told that if we find drugs, we put them back in the bag, give the bag back to the passenger, and let them go. We notify Law Enforcement and let THEM deal with the situation. A screener is there to stop WEAPONS AND EXPLOSIVES ONLY. If you want to take drugs through, they're not going to stop you, unless an LEO is right there.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


Probably causes cancer too, but no biggie, as long as the so called terrists don't win. What was their goal? Oh yeah, it was to take away or freedom.

On edit: That poster told me in their post that they worked for the company that designed these things. I'm not accusing anybody of anything. The poster freely admitted it.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Jack Jouett]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You really don't have a firm grasp on the way things work in Washington.

Somebody at L3 Communications said, "Hey, how can we get in on the national security scare tactics that are storming the country?" I know, we have a lot of high-tchnology, let's integrate into a program which does absolutely nothing, but intrudes on peoples rights. Let me get Senator Headuphisass on the phone, we own him." And that thing get's done.

Senator Headuphisass get's campaign contributions, L3 Communications get a lucrative contract, and the TSA get's the illusion that they are doing something about the canard known as terrorism.

Everybody is happy, except the citizenry who get the shaft. Oh, sorry, the sheeple who like this get to pound their chests at the invisible terrists.



[edit on 8-4-2009 by Jack Jouett]


Please. This is silly.
You still havent told me how this impedes on anyones rights. And how do you figure it does absolutely nothing? Are you saying metal detectors dont do anything either?

I dont buy into anything labeled "anti-terrorism", however, if you think airline safety isnt IMPERATIVE, then you are truly advocating anarchy.

Again, tell me how anyones rights are impeded, and tell me how you figure that this does nothing.....



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Did you look at the image I posted? You can see that woman's gluteal cleft, her bossom is clearly outlined and you can see her pubis mons. Not to mention the fact that the nipples have been airbrushed out. When the governemnt of United States of America sent a child through that machine they were engaging in child pornography. That is the definition as laid out by the government itself.



OUTLINES ARE NOT PORN. If this is the case, I want to press charges on anyone wearing a speedo, bikini, bathing suit, too tight an outfit.....see what I'm getting at?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You think that child porn is silly? Wow. You must not have kids.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by Helig
 


Probably causes cancer too, but no biggie, as long as the so called terrists don't win. What was their goal? Oh yeah, it was to take away or freedom.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Jack Jouett]


Probably is not a certainty, and if we legislated on mere probability then we would truly be an a pickle like no other. I'm not so much worried about terrorists (they have better funding and can wrangle SAMs) so much as I am the random nut who decides he wants to jack a plane for his own suicidal ends and nose it into whatever target wriggles their squiggle. I really fail to see how this device does anything that hasn't already been done in more embarrassing fashions.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Jouett
 


I didn't say that I worked FOR that company. Learn to read what I typed. I said that I worked for a company that SUBCONTRACTED UNDER THEM. I worked for another company that worked under ONE of the companies that developed these systems, all under the FAA. That's not the same as working for the company.

And no I don't work for either company now. I haven't in years, but I STILL think these are good machines and necessary. There are a LOT of things that a checkpoint x-ray can barely detect, or can't detect that these machines will detect.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You think that child porn is silly? Wow. You must not have kids.

No I think anyone implying that an image that OUTLINES a body constitutes porn is silly. I think it is silly that you all would rather find ANYTHING to complain about, than looking at the broad picture. I think it is QUITE silly that you all are whining about "child porn", yet have no problem with children walking around in bikinis, or revealing clothing, or anything of that nature.

You guys want to pic and choose-your okay with it as long as it has nothing to do with the government.

[edit on 4/8/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Not according to prosecutors in Virginia, they felt an underage girl wearing a towel and covering her breasts with her arms constitutes child pornography. So, you'd be wrong on that one.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Not according to prosecutors in Virginia, they felt an underage girl wearing a towel and covering her breasts with her arms constitutes child pornography. So, you'd be wrong on that one.
?




Ahh, but you miss a HUGE part of the point here: Those images WERE BEING TRANSFERRED.

You can get all emotional about it if you want. None of the things I listed constitutes porn. You are purely looking for something to whine about the government about....how bout you focus that attention on something that actually has some merit



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There are a LOT of things that a checkpoint x-ray can barely detect, or can't detect that these machines will detect.


So will the x-ray machines be upgraded to use this technology? Or is it just going to be easier to get contraband through in your carry on rather than carrying it on your person?

Again, I fail to see how these machines are going to make flying "safer". Are there some numbers on how many people currently fly with weapons and explosives? Of course not. Your argument is the same as saying "this country has not had a terrorist attack because the patriot act made us safer".

If a random nut wants to nose dive a plane, he's going to nose dive a plane. If a terrorist group wants to blow a plane up, they're going to blow a plane up, whether you body scan them or not.

Now to decide: Do I want someone taking a picture of my balls or grabbing them while they copy the hard drive from my laptop.

Eh, think I'll rent a car and drive, y'know, take my chances with being forced to give a DNA sample at some random "check point".

Seriously, these types of ideologies have made my once great country into a joke, all in the name of "safety and security". Well, every time some new act passes, or some nifty new techno-security-gadget put into use, I feel that my privacy is a little less safe, and my liberty a little less secure.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


You dug your own grave on that one my friend, because we do legislate on probability, how do you think these things got into the airports to begin with? Do you know how unlikely it is for a terrorist attack to occur? It's friggin' astronomical.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You really can't see the distiction between the two? Damn. So you got paid by your boss who in turn got paid by that compnay. There is NO difference. Who owns the intellectual property rights to the work you did? The company, right?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Jouett
 


Its probable that you may lose control of a motor vehicle one day, therefore I demand we outlaw them now on the chance that one day you might run off the road and kill an innocent pedestrian. It is probable that someone might choke to death on a potato chip, so therefore they need to be prohibited from production, possession and consumption. It is possible that you might become angry at someone and call them a foul word, so to protect the possible ears of my as of yet unborn children who may or may not ever be near you during this incident I must demand that you be muzzled for the sake of the children. See where this is going, I could spend all day tomorrow wasting SO's bandwidth on this nonsense line of thinking but it seems you are intent to do all the hard work for me, so have at it



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 



Id on't know why you even brought up probability. A terrorist attack on an airplane id highly unlikely. However, ever single person getting onto a plane at these airports has to go through the embarassment of going through that machine. This country has become ridiculous. Those who would give up liberty in favor of security deserve neither.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


A lot of things HAVE been caught at checkpoints and at airports thanks to technology like this, and the x-rays. Do you know how many security warnings we got a year when I was a screener? Quite a few. Do you know how many things we caught, using badly paid, old equipment? A lot.

There ARE people out there that want to hurt us. This machine makes the detection of those things they use much easier.

Jack, there is a BIG difference between working for that company, and being a subcontractor. If I work for that company, and I want to come out and rant and rave and bitch about this equipment, I can't. If I work as a subcontractor, I'm freer in what I can do. I also don't have as much access to the equipment that someone that works for them does. I didn't have to sign an NDA like an employee would. So yes, there is a difference.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
However, ever single person getting onto a plane at these airports has to go through the embarassment of going through that machine. This country has become ridiculous. Those who would give up liberty in favor of security deserve neither.


You really don't read well do you. ANY PASSENGER THAT DOES NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS MACHINE SIMPLY HAS TO SAY NO. This machine is NOT FOR EVERY PASSENGER to go through. It is for a random selection of passengers, and passengers that have been selected for secondary screening.

The minute a passenger says no, they get a pat down, and they DO NOT go through the machine.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by Helig
 



Id on't know why you even brought up probability. A terrorist attack on an airplane id highly unlikely. However, ever single person getting onto a plane at these airports has to go through the embarassment of going through that machine. This country has become ridiculous. Those who would give up liberty in favor of security deserve neither.


If you are trying to claim that airport security is not necessary, I'm done with this. There is no arguing beyond it, if you dont realize that airports/planes have been used as political/violent tools more than any other type of national resource/building/system.....





top topics
 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join