Do you honestly not think this is a nude image?

page: 31
56
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
The scans are only worth worrying about in my opinion if they could be damaging to health. Such as x-rays on pregnant women.

If the scan can detect someone carrying a weapon or an item that could be dangerous then so be it. Id rather be scanned then blown to bits.




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishmallow8
reply to post by purplemer
 


I agree with you bodies are natural and beautiful...but I still dont feel like showing my body. Do I have the right to say, no? Without losing the previlage of flying?


No one is doing anything to stop you from flying. Carnival charges to get on their boats. This does not stop me from sailing. This stops me from taking a carnival cruise. See the difference? Get a plane, people. How many posters have to point out the difference between patronizing a private company regulated by the government and your simple right to travel?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Why are people so focused on the morality issue? Sure you get a naked shot, and some stranger who just happened to past the tests for using the device gawks at your naked body, so what. If the person using the scanner is looking that hard at my naked body, just because they can, they have some major issues. I am sure that if it is a naked image I am sure children will not be going through the machines, though that is just an opinion on my part.

The real issue is the fact that these machines won’t help with security in the long term. In the beginning will the help identify terrorists, most likely, but how long do you think it will be before they will find a way to defeat these machines? More than likely as soon as this device was introduced they started thinking of ways to defeat the systems. As I have stated they already found ways to defeat the current systems in place. So in the long term the devices will just inconvenient the masses that are not committing the crimes in the meanwhile terrorist attacks will continue.

The question is how far are we willing to be inconvenienced by security technology that does not do what is put in place to do? It has to stop somewhere. The best way to catch these terrorists is to allow the security force to do their jobs, and give them more training if needed. Teach these security agents what to look for and to be weary of. With the methods already in place a well trained police/ security officer, should be sufficient in stopping these threats.

In the end if we keep putting these new technologies in place and relying on them instead of well trained people, you only help making the criminal element more intelligent criminals in the end.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
As a female, I hate the pat down. And for a pat down to be half as efficient as a scan, it would be a very intrusive pat down indeed.
My last pat down was when I was wearing a long flowing skirt. I don't think they could believe it was all me under there
.
Which got me thinking. Is perhaps the real focus of this, men in robes and women in burkas? I believe there has already been a case of a man trying to slip through in a burka...



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale


So freedom is based on what most people can afford is it?


Well yeah, it is very closely tied to it. There's nothing like poverty to decimate a people - poverty is very often considered a violence. Finances can very much limit one's freedom. That's nothing new. So to say that only the RICHEST should be able to FLY without standing naked in front of their government...sorry, I think the founding fathers would flip their wigs over that one.



Originally posted by Lillydale

You know what they were saying. It is asking for a prostate exam and then complaining about being violated. You had to get that, otherwise go back to sleep for an hour and come back.


No one is paying to go to the airport for a body scan though. They are going to fly. Making it inconvenient is a way of limiting that without making it ILLEGAL, much like the way abortion is limited by practical considerations now, like having to have a driver, having to travel to only a select few cities, having to walk past potentially dangerous demonstrators.
Not really wanting to argue abortion either way - but take for instance voting.
If people had to travel 300 miles to vote, how many do you think would vote?

[edit on 14-1-2010 by hadriana]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
All I can say is get prepared for all this technology which will change how things worked before.This stuff is going to violate privacy and everyone will know who you are,not much we can realy do to stop it.It will only get more amazing and dangerous to freedoms.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
Well yeah, it is very closely tied to it. There's nothing like poverty to decimate a people - poverty is very often considered a violence. Finances can very much limit one's freedom. That's nothing new. So to say that only the RICHEST should be able to FLY without standing naked in front of their government...sorry, I think the founding fathers would flip their wigs over that one.


Yeah that really sucks. Thanks god that only the richest do not have the best health care. Good thing that the richest do not have the best opportunities for education. The founding fathers would flip their....wait a minute.

That is how it works here in the U.S. I do not like it but that is how it works. This is nothing new and it is no encroachment on your right to travel. I think the founding fathers would ask why you need to be so dependent. I am pretty sure they did not get here on Jetblue.




No one is paying to go to the airport for a body scan though. They are going to fly.


Are they paying to sit in the waiting room for 45 minutes? Are they paying to feel like they need to go to the bathroom all day afterward? Some things have side effects. Scanners are a new side effect of flying.


Making it inconvenient is a way of limiting that without making it ILLEGAL, much like the way abortion is limited by practical considerations now,


DO NOT BRING ABORTION INTO THIS DEBATE YOU &*#^%@!!!!It does not even make sense and it is a low blow. If you want to go there, start a thread and tell me all about your uterus.


like having to have a driver, having to travel to only a select few cities, having to walk past potentially dangerous demonstrators.
Not really wanting to argue abortion either way - but take for instance voting.
If people had to travel 300 miles to vote, how many do you think would vote?


I am so flipping angry right now, if you have a point I do not see it. I cannot believe you would stoop to the level of trying to turn this into an abortion debate. You make me sick. Try again and see if you can keep from trying trying to use emotional ploys and make a decent argument if you have one.

[edit on 1/14/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
My lightweight leaded body suit will keep your privates private. Contact me for pricing. This suit is not to be sold to terrorists. Please specify gender and size of sex organs you want on your suit. The body scanners won't be around for too long since terrorists have all switched to rectal means of concealment.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FAQAmerica
 





If you don't want to be scanned DONT FLY. It's your choice to use their service and part of their service includes a body scan to ensure security.


It is not a service the airport provides it is an intrusion by the Federal Government.

Some posters in this thread keep acting like it is a business running it's own affairs but that is not the case. Some posters seem to be oblivious to the differences. They make the argument that if you don't like the intrusion into the business you wish to patron then you have the "freedom" to patron another business. They state that if you don't want to go through a scanner then you can buy a plane.

What is to stop the Government from further intruding in the process of buying a private plane. I'm sure people like you will tell these law biding citizens that they are still free to walk. Is that freedom? Is that choice?

Furthermore if we agree that these scanners are needed at an airport, to "protect" individuals boarding a plane, then they are necessary everywhere similar sized groups of people congregate. Why are we interested in only "protecting" individuals on a plane. Why not in restaurants, office buildings, malls, supermarkets, etc, etc, etc...



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Providing transport for someone is a service. What part of that do you not understand.

I mean i'm speaking from an English point of view... maybe it is written into your Laws that you have the right to use airports however you want.


They state that if you don't want to go through a scanner then you can buy a plane.

What is to stop the Government from further intruding in the process of buying a private plane.


Then build one yourself... or how about this idea, you move to a different country. If your that intent on flying and THAT intent on not going through the body scanner then thats YOUR problem not theres.


Is that freedom? Is that choice?


The choice is to fly or not. Thats a clear choice... and by freedom do you mean to allow you to do whatever you want. Maybe i'll say I do want to carry a bomb on the plane just for company and create a thread and start bitchin about my "freedoms" and "choice" being ignored because they won't let me take it on.

If you don't like their security measures don't use their method of transport.

How hard is that for you to understand? If I build a carboard box plane in my garden and say your only allowed in if you take your shoes off will you cry about that aswell. Your freedom to use SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY.


[edit on 14-1-2010 by FAQAmerica]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FAQAmerica
 





Providing transport for someone is a service. What part of that do you not understand.


Providing the transport is a service offered by a public business. They are not the ones that are imposing the scanners. The scanners is not their service.



Then build one yourself... or how about this idea, you move to a different country. If your that intent on flying and THAT intent on not going through the body scanner then thats YOUR problem not theres.


So this is your solution? Do you believe these security measures to be necessary? Based on what statistics? What data do you have that convinces you that private, ethical, law biding citizens need to be treated like criminals? If checkpoints, run and operated by the Federal Government, become mandatory in order to enter all businesses will you still be so hostile to those that oppose such measures?




If you don't like their security measures don't use their method of transport. How hard is that for you to understand?


I don't think you understand. Those who control the security measures is the federal government. The one's who own the method of transport are the airline companies. So their security methods aren't for their method of transport. It is an intrusion. And one would think an intrusion of such an invasive nature would cause Americans to demand sufficient data in order to support such invasion. But I guess, for some, sufficient data means having our television box tell us it is necessary.




If I build a carboard box plane in my garden and say your only allowed in if you take your shoes off will you cry about that aswell. Your freedom to use SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY.


I hope you now see the problem with this analogy...



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by FAQAmerica
 





If you don't want to be scanned DONT FLY. It's your choice to use their service and part of their service includes a body scan to ensure security.


It is not a service the airport provides it is an intrusion by the Federal Government.

Some posters in this thread keep acting like it is a business running it's own affairs but that is not the case.




No, some posters here think you are ignoring things like oh say...the FAA. Apparently the government is already intruding. This is the same government that decides whether or not you can drive a car on their public roads. The government already regulates these things quite highly. THAT is what some posters here think This is nothing new and it really does not make things much worse than they already are.

Please continue to ignore me so that you can misconstrue my point and twist my words.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 





Apparently the government is already intruding... The government already regulates these things quite highly.


Agreed. But it doesn't make such intrusions or regulations necessary. And as more invasive intrusions continue to be introduced I will continue to voice my disdain.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Air Transportation is a service, if you want to use this service you must go past security checks.

It's not that hard. You a free to use the service is you agree to the security checks it is your choice to use the service or not.

I mean i know your countries pretty messed up but i've never seen people whine over measures that are attempting to improve security. I personally would find this body scan a lot less intrusive than getting touched up/down by the guard.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
reply to post by alaskan
 


You delete the image that you played around with the colors because that is not relevant to your argument. They wont be doing that to images, they will just be looking at the top ones you showed.

How prude is our society to think that is offensive? Most places in the world are mature enough to handle a real nude body and would laugh at a computer generated blue body being considered as offensive.

The people looking at these will also not be in the same area as the people from what I read. I have no problem with myself or a loved one going through these because I have nothing to hide. In fact I will smile for the camera as they get a view of me.



What's to stop a guard taking a pretty girl aside to "scan" for "illicit materials".

Nothing.

The point is, people(operators) will abuse this. Maybe not everyone, but some - that is human nature.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FAQAmerica
 




I mean i know your countries pretty messed up but i've never seen people whine over measures that are attempting to improve security. I personally would find this body scan a lot less intrusive than getting touched up/down by the guard.


This will only improve security on the short term. The terrorists will quickly find a way to avoid these scanners just as they have every other means of security thus far. This will only end up inconveniencing the masses that are not committing these crimes.

You know these will cause the fees of the tickets to go up so they can pay for these things. If they are enforced and put into use will I still fly, of course I will. I don’t have a problem with the scanners themselves, just that I will be paying higher fees in my airline tickets, a higher fee that isn’t needed, because these things will end up being useless due to the criminal element always being one step ahead. Sure they may catch that .01 % of the problem, but does that really constitute these things being put in place and prices of airline tickets going up because of it.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
NO NO NO

Stop ignoring the fact that almost ALL of our security has been ineffective because of the government officials that run the systems.

The body scanners are being pushed on us now because the TSA and homeland security were asleep at the wheel (if they were at the wheel at all)

Body scanners will dono better if we dont use them effectively...but ten again anything that could be found using a body scanner you could find with a portal explosive detector, bomb dog and metal detectors



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FAQAmerica
 





It's not that hard. You a free to use the service is you agree to the security checks it is your choice to use the service or not.


No. I am sorry. I will never consider being required, by the Federal Government, to be treated like a criminal in order to use a service provided by a public business as freedom. That is not freedom. That is not free choice.




I mean i know your countries pretty messed up but i've never seen people whine over measures that are attempting to improve security.


What data do you have that shows this will improve security? What data do you have that shows installing these things at airports are more necessary then anywhere else? In fact, I can show, based on statistics that these machines may reduce more deaths (by far) if placed to the entrance of every office building then at airports. If they are "necessary" at airports then they are "necessary" almost everywhere.

When you are standing in line to go through a checkpoint every time you wish to patron a business will you still not "whine" about an attempt to improve security?

[edit on 15-1-2010 by harvib]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


I don't think calling me names is needed because you got angry or didn't understand my point.

I wasn't starting such a debate as you've accused nor do I wish to engage in one and I think I was clear on that. I was merely using (what is obviously a hot button issue for YOU) to make my point that sometimes it is possible to make something so inconvenient as to discourage it and make it impossible for practical considerations that you might as well make it illegal without actually doing so.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Sam Vimes
 


Hence the ban on taking things like water bottles onto the plane, enforced at the boarding gate (if done correctly).

Shouldn't be giving people ideas though.



[edit on 10/1/2010 by rnaa]


What ban on taking water bottles onto a plane? Which country? What law? What are you talking about? Europe? Oz? Mate please...Since writing that post, I've just got home from the M.E. avec water bottle...

Really, I'm not giving people ideas. Maybe I'm not making my self clear.

I can make a shaped charge explosive from non liquid ingredients found on a plane in flight. Whether I've had my pants pulled down or not, despite what
Mythbusters say.

And because I know how to do this, any motivated person with an ideal in mind can also do this. Ask yourself why it doesn't happen that often, if at all.
The answer is very unsettling.





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join