TSA full body scanners at airports.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Who exactly wants to hurt us? You must never leave your house, the fear must consume you.




posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Who exactly wants to hurt us? You must never leave your house, the fear must consume you.


This is a fairly ironic statement from the guy FEARMONGERING about this. Calling this child porn and basically using nothing but propaganda to get a rise out of people.

Either that, or you are truly paranoid.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

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.





Now the plan is going nationwide. Joe Sharkey of the New York Times reports that TSA "plans to replace the walk-through metal detectors at airport checkpoints with whole-body imaging machines—the kind that provide an image of the naked body." All passengers will "go through the whole-body imager instead of the walk-through metal detector," according to TSA's chief technology officer, and the machines will begin operating soon after orders are placed this summer.


Deeper Digital Penetration

Maybe you should do a little more reading yourself.

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



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Jouett
 


Yeah, you're right. The world is a wonderful place and NOBODY wants to hurt anybody else.


I leave my house every day and I get on airplanes when I have to travel. I also accept the fact that airport security is a necessary evil.

As for who wants to hurt us, let's see..... There was the plane that crashed because the airline employee that got fired killed the pilots after bypassing security. There was Anne Marie Murphy who was stopped BEFORE getting on a plane with a bomb that was placed in her bag without her knowledge. Pan Am 103. Shall I go on?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Hey, since you have no privacy issues, let me come over to your house and rummage through your medecine cabinet and take a look at your hard drive.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Jouett
 


Maybe you should have read deeper into the other sources linked.


Millimeter wave technology will remain voluntary for passengers; those who do not wish to receive millimeter wave screening will undergo metal detector screening and a pat-down.

www.tsa.gov...



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I notice you are now just ignoring my arguments.....love it. Can't rebutte the evidence/logic given? Just ignore it. Classic.

Bottom line, you cannot make a case for any of the claims you make. Yet you are calling others paranoid.

Seems the hypocrisy on here knows no bounds.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Hey, since you have no privacy issues, let me come over to your house and rummage through your medecine cabinet and take a look at your hard drive.


I'm still waiting for you to explain how privacy is violated here.....But I understand you cant address that, which is why you are making this personal.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Nice strawman.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


So looking at naked men, women and children to get on an airplane isn't a privacy violation in your opinion? Wow. The fact of the matter is that you tried to change the topic from a child porn issue to a privacy issue. Let me guess you are a member of the Federalist Society.

Anyway, check out the law. Manufacturing images of nude children is indeed child pornography. People have been going to jail for it.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


So looking at naked men, women and children to get on an airplane isn't a privacy violation in your opinion? Wow. The fact of the matter is that you tried to change the topic from a child porn issue to a privacy issue. Let me guess you are a member of the Federalist Society.

Anyway, check out the law. Manufacturing images of nude children is indeed child pornography. People have been going to jail for it.


Show me where anyone is being seen naked. Come on, show me. THIS IS A BODY SCAN. IT SHOWS OUTLINES.

I never changed to a privacy issue, and still am not. That was you my friend, after I proved your "child porn" allegations false. There is no violation of privacy, just as there is no child porn. You chose not to address any of the instances I gave you that are far closer to porn than what you are speaking of.

Child porn involves naked pictures of children. There are no pictures taken, and no one is seen naked.

I'd love if I didnt have to be a broken record and repeat myself over and over....it'd be great if you would actually address the DEBATE WHICH YOU INITIATED.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


So looking at naked men, women and children to get on an airplane isn't a privacy violation in your opinion? Wow. The fact of the matter is that you tried to change the topic from a child porn issue to a privacy issue. Let me guess you are a member of the Federalist Society.

Anyway, check out the law. Manufacturing images of nude children is indeed child pornography. People have been going to jail for it.

Yes, PICTURES OF NAKED CHILDREN, which is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a scan image which OUTLINES THE BODY. Youa re trying to play semantics on this, and bottom line, whatever you want to call it, it isnt porn.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


I've already gone over this with you. You refuse to listen. You can clearly see that woman's private parts. If they are doing this with children then it constitutes child porn. It's a zero tolerance policy. I didn't enact it, the state did, take your argument up with them.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
When they are put into every airport in the nation will the public be told of the new technology or will we be conned into thinking it is still a metal detector? Looking at the picture in the link to the news story provided by the OP is showing more than it should I think. Where is the line drawn? Those who make drawings with pencils/ pens/ charcoal or any other things are still outlines the same as this machine claims to do, but then why are those drawings considered nudity and porn? Because they are porn. The same porn that this machine provides.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Jouett
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


I've already gone over this with you. You refuse to listen. You can clearly see that woman's private parts. If they are doing this with children then it constitutes child porn. It's a zero tolerance policy. I didn't enact it, the state did, take your argument up with them.



No, you can CLEARLY see the OUTLINE of that woman's parts. IF you dont know the difference, that is a whole other issue. There is nothing about this that constitutes child porn anymore than, as I said earlier, a child in a diaper on the beach, or a bathing suit, or a teen girl wearing tight clothing.

Get over yourself.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Last Summer I was traveling through the Denver airport and experienced a "testing" of one unit similar to the one described on this thread.

As you stepped into it,it also gave your height and weight in a digital readout...I could read it from where I was standing before I actually stepped into it and was pretty sure those in back of me could as well.

I'm thinking a LOT more woman will be annoyed about their weight being displayed for anyone in the area to see should they give a chit,LOL! "Outlines of private parts" can be seen on a Barbie Doll.

It was sort of big,clunky,like a standing MRI or something and people didn't bat an eyelash,just said "Oh...THIS is different" when they moved some of us over the the one line passing through it.

I couldn't care less personally about how much was "seen"...will I EVER see those people again? Naw...

I was MUCH more annoyed when a few years ago,the underwire in my bra set off the metal detector and the young man on duty gave me a bit of attitude...I was polite and he persisted to tell me "something wasn't right" so I offered to remove the offending article on the spot and was then given several apologies...and was told it would not be necessary by his supervisor.

I truly don't think they are trying to offend,maybe just to simplify and improve? Hoping so!



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I'm not ashamed of my body but i still wear clothing so i don't expose it to everyone. I don't want someone looking at me naked unless i choose to let them see. Walking through the airport isn't always a choice as flying is often one of the only options. So basically if i fly they get to see me naked? How is that not an invasion of my privacy?

The original point about child pornography is an interesting one as well. These machines may not show incredible detail but you are still looking at childrens bodies.

This is just wrong.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I think the real problem is being overlooked here.

Why should any citizen on a domestic flight be searched for any reason without cause?

Flights between countries may be a different issue, but domestic flights? Since when in the US has the law been guilty until proven innocent. This is a dangerous president that has been set here. It can only lead to no good.

The President is not searched is he? Of course not. If a law does not apply to the President, it does not apply to anyone. Simple as that.

How could anyone know that the President, a self confessed drug user is not carrying illicit or non-prescribed drugs? What if he is carrying shampoo bottles or other illegal items on to Air Force One? It is entirely possible a Terrorist could trick his way into the White House is it not? I want him searched every time he gets on his Helicopter or a Plane. Like I said, the law applies to everyone or nobody. We have no Royalty here as per our Constitution right? "All Men are Created Equal".



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


You can't differentiate between internal flights and international flights. Both passengers go through the same checkpoint. Add to that the fact that anyone can come into the US, and then get on a domestic flight and try something, and you have to search all passengers.

I'll have to check, but until recently anyone flying on a private jet didn't have to be screened, unless requested. The only time we screened private flights were when they were either large jets, like a 707, and went to the main terminal, or an L1011 going around the world with 60+ people onboard.

As I said before, screeners aren't looking for drugs, so if the President wants to carry drugs on the plane, the screeners wouldn't stop him anyway. Add to that the fact that there are a lot of people with guns on the plane with him, and it's the most secure plane in the world.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
"Pornography is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience"....Intended to arouse...Are these images intended to arouse or protect?

By your argument, a photo of a nude child, introduced into court as evidence of abuse, neglect and/or murder, would be cause for the law enforcement, medical personnel and court officials to be arrested...Please use a little common sense here.

Secondly, you can drive, walk, take a bus, etc., if you choose to not be scanned.

Now, don't come back with 'I have a right to get on a plane to travel'...No you do not...It is a privilege. If it were a right, it would be free. Poor people can't fly, due to the cost of a ticket.





top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join