It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do you honestly not think this is a nude image?

page: 22
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Tifozi
Because the President of a PASSENGER company, doesn't want his CLIENTS to avoid flying.

Things have a way of backfiring on us. Be careful what you wish for. You're so certain in your beliefs that you see no problem with everyone going along. Well we might surprise you and make other travel arrangements. How well is the airline industry doing these days can you really afford to loose customers? You may think this resistance is just crazy but if enough people get fed up it could hit your industry harder than you think.

Seems like a good portion of people are against this intrusion. You want them all to subscribe to your inside view maintaining your safety so you can return to hearth & home. Well aren't you special.

I'm sorry but you ask too much. We all take on dangerous jobs. We know the risks, we try to be as safe as possible but when does it go to far? You go on about other risks to aviation. I understand but those same risks exist here on the ground. You talk about drugs well what about alcohol? It's served on the planes. What about alcoholic/druggie pilots are you tested before every flight or just annually?

My family has worked in industry for generations. We all are very aware of the risks regardless of safety standards in place. I worked 11pm-5am at a convenience store. It wasn't a high crime area, it wasn't druggies that scared me nor was it terrorists, it was drunks. They would knock over displays, they would walk out too drunk to remember they hadn't paid. If I said anything they would turn mean. Do you think these guys couldn't pound me into the ground and not even remember doing it? As long as the drunks weren't driving the cops wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to come help me. So if I could put safety measures in place that would allow my workplace to be more safe. I would close bars & liquor stores and while I'm at it maybe it's a good idea to just outlaw it altogether.

I mean it would be in the name of safety right? Look at all the people who could go home to their families instead of being killed by drunk drivers. Does it matter that the majority manage to drink safely and have a good time? You have the eyes of the world looking out for your safety what about the rest of us. I can die the same as you and for me drunks are a real risk to my safety. You could say maybe I shouldn't work at an all night convenience store. I could say the same thing about you being a pilot. What about driving should I give that up too because there are drunks on the road? You could say your industry is more deserving of such safeguards because there are more lives in your hands? Sorry I think there's more people on the roads with drunks than in the air with terrorists. Is it because you're in the air everyday and feel your odds aren't exactly in your favor so extreme measure need to be taken to ensure your safety? Well I drive for a living now I'm on the roads everyday and I can tell you my odds are probably worse than yours but how many of you would give up alcohol to make my job safer?

If you get scanners to protect you on the job then I want special measures on my job too. Where will it end? Would you be willing to give a blood sample before you start your car? How about a scanner at the door of my store that is sensitive to alcohol? Sure you only had one drink or maybe a dose of cough medicine but the cops will come you will be checked out probably embarrassed. You will surely not come back to my store.

Another thing I know how people like to mess with electronic equipment. How much dialing in can these scanner operators do? Might they be tempted to mess with the calibration to focus in better? How could that impact the safety of this equipment? Could we possibly be exposed to higher levels of radiation due to operators not knowing what they are doing or just messing around?

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:23 PM
I don't ever feel SECURE when I am naked in public, do people really think they will?

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by hadriana
I don't ever feel SECURE when I am naked in public, do people really think they will?

That's really your problem... I mean, you have to feel comfortable with your body... if you dont hey, its not the machine's fault...

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:36 PM
well, now that i think about.. it does seem like a nude image (without the censors.) it's a bit disturbing that our government wants security people to see naked civilians for security reasons... it's like a strip search. can you image little kids having to go through that?

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Originally posted by hadriana
I don't ever feel SECURE when I am naked in public, do people really think they will?

That's really your problem... I mean, you have to feel comfortable with your body... if you dont hey, its not the machine's fault...

Has nothing to do with this Hippy free love bullcrap you people are spewing

It goes back to your natural instincts to cover up for protection against wind and cold and sabertooth tiger.

Theres a reason why we wear clothes and its not just to be stylish. We have a constitution to protect us from being lined up and viewed like this.

First thing they did after selection in concentration camps was strip you down and shave your head...Thats why everyone was all up in arms when the soldiers in Iraq made those guys stand naked in a hallway...Its psychological torture!

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:54 PM
How does not wanting to be viewed naked by strangers against your will have anything at all to do with your feelings about your body? Honestly, that is one of the silliest things I have ever heard used to justify our governments continual infringements upon right to privacy and undue search and seizure.

Let use the same logic for sex. Are you a prude and ashamed of your body because you dont want just any old moron off the street to jump on and have a go? Ridiculous.

And the other silly argument I see repeated time and again is,
Well if it makes us safer...." and "you still have the right not to fly...."

Well so do you my cowardly friends. If you are SOOOO worried your plane is going to get hijacked that you want to subject the entire country full of citizens to gross violations of the right to privacy, maybe YOU shouldnt fly. Some of us are willing to take a little risk in order to be free.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by dereks

What about when you need to travel overseas? Maybe for a bussiness trip, honeymoon, wedding etc. The point is that we should not have to sacrifice flying to avoid being seen naked. This is ridiculous!

And what about me, A 14 year old girl? I don't want anybody seeing me naked!

Jeez, what is the world coming to? Where we are required to let strangers see us naked to get from texas to london. Not by a doctor for a medical exam but by some random person to FLY! UGH!

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:02 PM
I'm not 100% if anyone already posted this but the OP's picture is fake. It's a stock image of a nude woman with the gun added in photoshop. Real scanner images don't look like that. Gizmodo

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:05 PM
These images are NOT from the airport scanners....
They are a hoax...

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:10 PM
If scanners are so great, then why don't they have them in prisons?
Why don't prisons scan prisoners every day to detect weapons and prevent prison violence?

I think some other group, not American, is trying to pull a Nazi trick on us Americans. This is all going slowly step by step until the gas chambers. I think not everybody will be scanned. I think elites will not be scanned. The scanners could be harming us.

Why are there so many dual citizenship people in America telling Americans what to do?!

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by purplemer

It's not that people have a problem with the naked body its a privacy concern. It's OUR body. It's very personal and no one should be forced to bare all for some security guard. Try explaining to a 13 year old girl that to go on vacation some stranger is going to see her nude. Good way to traumatize kids who are going through puberty and are more insecure than some other adult, hippy, free love people

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:11 PM
Let's face it, this idea didn't just come along in the last 3 weeks. The technology has been developed, and the machines already exist. This was in the plan all along, they were just waiting for the right time to implement the plan. ( Maybe building, installing, and running the machines creates badly needed jobs??? ).
The general public and the media are suckers for anything that falls under the umbrella of protecting children and preventing terrorrism. Whenever that's the default reason for doing or not doing anything, no one can argue without being labeled as, well, you name it.
What's the real issue here? Your psuedo-privacy verses the overall safety of others.
When you purchase a ticket, you already open yourself up to some level of screening as a potential terrorrist or drug smuggler, not to mention that if they want to strip search you, they can. ( I.E., try paying cash for your ticket instead of using plastic. Use cash, and you're already a suspect. ). Once the purchase is made, you've already given up some of your rights, you are already compromised.
Any level of authority or screening carries the potential for abuse, there's no getting around that. Give someone a badge or a gun, or a mandate to carry out, and watch and wait.
However, would I feel safer flying knowing that everyone else has undergone some realiable, accurate level of screening? Absolutely.
We have stepped through the looking glass, there is no going back. Kids shouldn't have to have metal detectors in schools but they do. They shouldn't have to have cops in their hallways, but they do. This is the sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in.
And yes, Americans are a bit prudish, IMHO, but there was a good point made by another poster; After you've had to stare at a screen with X number of people being herded through day after day, the novelty will wear off. The internet has a ready supply of pornography, and if a guy ( or gal ) had to resort to capturing indistinct images from their machine to get their kicks, that would seem too great a risk, and a huge waste of time.
This does smack of being distasteful, and does feel intrusive, no doubt. But I'd rather have this than a strip search.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by BingeBob

THAT is a very good point. Why did the liberal leftist news say that stripping Iraqis was bad very bad, but stripping Americans is alright???

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:13 PM
I wonder if I can get my office to buy one of these? We are a secure facility, so I think I can justify the need for it, and I wouldn't mind seeing these women come and go through the scanner all day!

There, I just made the argument for all of you! People like me are around, and they will get some enjoyment from doing their job!

Then again, I don't need the scanner, I already love seeing the tight low-rider jeans, low-cut blouses, and exposed naval shirts that girls wear around these days. The scanner is really an expensive way to see something that the most women these days are begging to show off anyway! For the women that aren't already showing it off, the guy behind the scanner probably isn't enjoying seeing it, so I guess it averages out!

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:14 PM
How about this image posted by the associated press?

Thats still enough definition to see someones bone...with an E R on the end

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by moonzoo7

Id rather have neither...Id rather they just follow the rules already set instead of f'n up all new ones

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:20 PM
The terrorists have already accomplished their definition. So now, in effort for our safety, they will take body-scan pictures of everyone who flies be it man, woman or child, but we still aren't allowed to go, "Hey that early 20s muslim paying cash with no luggage for a 1 way ticket into the heart of america without a passport, hey he might be a terrorist!" BEFORE (he) gets on the damn plane.

So now (we) have to pay the price, go through the extra -- and controversial hassle -- to have our five year old child appear on the nudie-machine for some perv in the name of political correctness.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by SlasherOfVeils]

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by alaskan

Looks Nude to me...

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:34 PM
I think the scanners will fail. Somebody will bring something past them and blow up a plane and then everybody will be ticked off at the waste of money.

I see traffic ticket cameras shutting down since they cause more troubles than benefits, so it is only a matter of time before the scanners are sitting gathering dust.

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:13 PM
To make this Short!
Do you wish to be a courpse in a air crash investigation?
Or have passengers do a 5 second intrusive scan?
I know what I'd prefer, getting to my destination in 1 piece.... not 100 pieces scattered accross a crash site.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by DreamerOracle]

top topics

<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in