What would you do? A hypothetical question about airport scanners: security vs. privacy

reply to post by sos37


If I were forced to take a job earning so much money (thirty thousand is way above my level of need) I would take number three, because it sounds like the best fit for me. What kind of thugs am I working with that I have to endure full body scans?


ETA: What does child porn have to do with this? Why is there such a huge facet of conversation focusing on child porn? Is that really an issue with full body scans?


[edit on 2-2-2010 by hotbakedtater]

I would go with plane #2 cause the drug runners that would flood that airline would be way more heavily armed than any terrorist.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

child porn?
Is that really an issue with full body scans?

How about look at the pictures and you tell me?

I prefer greyhound. Dont even have to use your real name for a ticket.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

child porn?
Is that really an issue with full body scans?

How about look at the pictures and you tell me?

Oh no a naked chick. Close your eyes, no one has ever seen a naked chick before.
Oh wait, she has a gun. The scanner picked up a gun, that's really cool. I almost forgot to look at the gun because I was looking at her boobs.
Sheesh... can we grow up now?

I'm sure there are so many hot chicks that pass through the scanners that have never been naked before. Further, these scanners aren't going to be used on everyone. But there is an increase in the no fly list passengers lately along with chatter that's indicating a need for more security.

Maybe with the scanners more muslims won't fly because they are so modest. Good.

reply to post by sos37


There is a big difference between displaying my car keys and having somebody looking at my "personal package."

In my pockets I carry my wallet, car keys, and cell phone. If you want to look at the outside of my wallet and cell phone, fine. They are things that will be publicly displayed when I use them. You want to look at my clothes that will be displayed publicly later then fine. However, I do not take off my shirt in public and I do not expose myself in public. Only two people see me naked, my wife and my doctor. Both see me only with my consent and neither is performing a criminal search of my person, papers, or belongings.

Metal detectors do not require you to expose yourself in public. If they want you to do more than take off your shoes they are supposed to take you to a seperate room. Then they pat you down first. If there is any question after that they have to run it though the chain of command before a strip search is conducted.

Do you not see the difference between calling everyone that buys a ticket a criminal and having to establish reasonable suspicion? Do you not understand the difference between inspecting publicly displayed items and staring at someone's genitalia?

At what point can we admit the terrorists won?

reply to post by JJay55

Sheesh... can we grow up now?

How do you reconcile being sufficiently "adult" to be calm and comfortable demanding millions of people show their genitals, but be all terrified and scared about the average of slightly less than one person who dies to terrorist events in the US every year?

If you ask me to cite sources, then you obviously haven't been reading the thread and you're just trolling and you can shut up now.

I can understand being all emotional either way, and I can understand being cold and intellectual either way, but how do you manage to be cold and intellectual about child porn, but all emotional and scared like a little girl over terrorism?



[edit on 2-2-2010 by LordBucket]

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by JJay55

 

Sheesh... can we grow up now?

How do you reconcile being sufficiently "adult" to be calm and comfortable demanding millions of people show their genitals, but be all terrified and scared about the average of slightly less than one person who dies to terrorist events in the US every year?

If you ask me to cite sources, then you obviously haven't been reading the thread and you're just trolling and you can shut up now.

I can understand being all emotional either way, and I can understand being cold and intellectual either way, but how do you manage to be cold and intellectual about child porn, but all emotional and scared like a little girl over terrorism?



[edit on 2-2-2010 by LordBucket]

As a parent I would have no problem with having my child pass through a scanner.
I'm not the least bit emotional over any issues. Being emotional is what makes people not able to make decisions and fuss over silly little things.

The image of the scanner isn't public. The image of the scanner isn't available for view of anyone but an officer. And guess what... we all have genitals, that's normal. Maybe that's your issue.

reply to post by JJay55


There are more than a few problems with the no fly list and the chatter that establishes it.

Americas Maginot Line

The error-filled list has caused tens of thousands of innocent people to be confused with terrorists. What was promised as protection against Al Qaeda and other terrorists through government interagency cooperation is instead a list brimming with mistakes and government agencies reluctant to correct them. But there is something worse than hassling innocent passengers. We know that known terrorists have repeatedly flown either because of gaps and mistakes in the no-fly list or because intelligence agencies allowed them to fly to see where they would go. We also know that the same government agencies that in 2001 refused to share information with the FAA — as a way to protect sources and methods — are at the heart of why there is no effective no-fly database today.


The net effect is that by keeping important terrorism and intelligence information from the no-fly list, public safety is jeopardized and the likelihood of another 9/11-style attack is increased. One high-level TSA official describes the group of terrorism watch lists consolidated into several lists by the Department of Homeland Security as “a fake. No-fly doesn’t protect anyone. It is every government agency’s cover-your-ass list of names. Many of the really bad guys are never put on the list because the intelligence people think the airlines are not trustworthy. That makes the incomplete list we give the airlines next to worthless.” That was in 2006.

FBI Files Fail To Show How No Fly List Makes Americans Safer

Like documents released this summer by the Transportation Security Administration(TSA), nothing in the FBI's documents demonstrates how the "no fly" list makes Americans safer. Quite to the contrary, the documents suggest troubling inadequacies with the government's management of the "no fly" list, and raise the question of whether
federal authorities understand – or even have – set criteria for using the list. Moreover, the FBI continues to withhold basic information about the list, including how a person erroneously placed on the list can get her name off of the list.


Despite this wide distribution, the documents also reveal that, long
after the "no fly" list was already in use, FBI officials themselves may not have understood what criteria are used to place a name on the list. In other words, the government may be widely disseminating the "no fly" list both internationally and domestically, even though the public, and maybe even the government itself, does not know how a name is placed on the list.


Among other things, the public still does not know:
• Is First Amendment protected activity a reason for placing somebody's name on the "no fly" list? The fact that the FBI lacks documents about this question is particularly troubling given a recent New York Times report that the FBI has collected extensive information about anti-war demonstrators and a recently revealed FBI internal memo instructing local law enforcement to monitor demonstration activities.
• Does the FBI or TSA track "no fly" stops? According to TSA documents released earlier, TSA does not track the number of times passengers like Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon have been stopped because of the "no fly" list, and the FBI does not appear to track this information either. How can we know if the "no fly" list makes us safer if the government doesn't even know how many people are stopped because of the list?
• Does the FBI or TSA communicate with airlines, airports, and local police about the "no fly" list? If the federal government does not regularly coordinate with these entities, how can the government monitor or correct problems with the "no fly" list?

We Are All Terrorist

The list now reportedly includes more than 500,000 names, according to a similar document reported on by ABC News in June. (The Justice Department has since removed that document from its website.)



The report defines a positive match as "one in which an encountered individual is positively matched with an identity in the Terrorist Screening Data Base, or TSDB."

It's not clear from the report whether those numbers include individuals whose names only coincidently match one of those on list, such as when Sen. Ted Kennedy was confused with a former IRA terrorist also named Kennedy.

The watch list has been hounded by these mismatches, which have included small children, former presidential candidates, and Americans with common names such as David Nelson.

Searching FBI No Fly List Mistakes returned over 200,000 hits.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MikeNice81]

I would definately fly on plane 2.

The only thing is when flying plane 2 you don't need to show up 2 hours before the flight.

Five minutes before the flight would do.

You know just like I used to show up to the airport for decades 5 minutes before the flight.

To get on the plane that my upright seat back cushion doubles as a safety and flotation device.

It's actually much thicker than a pair of box cutters.

I don't fly anymore.

The airports aren't safe. They are filled with mindless Gestapo agents and people who don't deserve to be Americans.

Anyone who would trade their liberty and freedoms for security deserves neither and will get neither.

In life there are no guarantees and beware the person trying to sell you one!

take the scanner.. to me it is no big thing at all....

reply to post by sos37


Well , I think I would take a chance on Plane 2 as long as I can carry a Gun and a Parachute on board . And if anyone on that Plane looks Suspicious to me , I reserve the right to empty a Full Clip into them if they make any Freakin Sudden moves ...................



I see your Point ...........Better to be Safe than Sorry ? ......Tough Choice for some i would think ....

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

reply to post by MikeNice81


The only difference is that over time, the security practices that were most likely considered outrageous and intrusive are now considered trivial by comparison.

Nowadays they can ask you to open your carry-on luggage. What if they pull out a stack of nudie magazines or something else you would rather not have exposed to public scrutiny?

So my question - if full body scanners don't go away, how long will it be before they are considered "the norm" and an acceptable annoyance, as another poster put it?

reply to post by sos37


If in fact you could carry whatever you wanted
on flight #2, including weapons for self-defense,
I would fly on flight #2.
Now, I don't believe everyone should carry a weapon,
but I also don't believe everyone should live in the
fear a propaganda of their own government.
So, in a nutshell i would take my chances with flight
#2 over putting my trust in this government!

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

child porn?
Is that really an issue with full body scans?

How about look at the pictures and you tell me?

I really don't know what to say about your source. It is from Alex Jones Prison Planet site. I love listening to Alex, for entertainment. In my opinion, he exaggerates a LOT.

So, instead of relying on what I consider less than stellar proof from AJ, I googled this myself.

If you google this yourself as well, be warned, lots of unrelated pornography comes up with the search.

Here is a picture I ran across of a flabby out of shape man, not some nubile woman with perky boobs like Alex had.




How does this even approach porno level?

I read some articles that said some places are exempting under 18 kids from scans.

WHAT??

So......to be safe, lets scan everyone, with this porno scanner!!

But wait, not under 18 people, child porno is BAD.

So, logic says the bad guys will now put the bombs inside of the kids bellies, to blow up the planes.

Outrageous all the way around. Just ridiculous.

Providing I have the option to boycott flying altogether, that's what I'd do. I just won't fly. Hog's were built to travel the roadways, ferries are for the use of crossing channels/bays. I won't fly, period.

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

The only difference is that over time, the security practices that were most likely considered outrageous and intrusive are now considered trivial by comparison.

Nowadays they can ask you to open your carry-on luggage. What if they pull out a stack of nudie magazines or something else you would rather not have exposed to public scrutiny?

So my question - if full body scanners don't go away, how long will it be before they are considered "the norm" and an acceptable annoyance, as another poster put it?

I don't carry nudie magazines in my carry on luggage. I don't carry that stuff at all. It really isn't my thing. Besides wouldn't it be more cost effective to use a laptop with wireless. On to the point. I don't think they should be able to open your bags unless the x-ray reveals something questionable.

I can not tell the future. So I have no idea when they will become the norm. Even if I could it would not change the core issue. I do not want someone giving me a strip search without probable cause. I do not want some one I don't know looking at my genitailia. It is more than a matter of privacy. It is a matter of being treated like a criminal because I bought a plane ticket.

Like I said before, I have this strange thing about not having my person, property, or papers searched without probable cause. Buying a plane ticket is not probable cause. Especially when you consider the chance of a terrorist actually killing someone on a plane is 1 in 25,000,000. (You have about as much chance of hitting the grand prize on a scratch off ticket.)

Think about this with some logic. Every American killed in a terrorist attack using airplanes - in the last decade - died on 9/11/01. You have more chance of falling in your shower and drowning. You are more likely to get hit by lightning. You are more likely to get killed in a car wreck. You are twice as likely to be crushed by a vending machine.

Are you willing to have your blood alcohol level checked every time you drive? Are you willing to pay for a monitor to stand in every vending area to ensure nobody is crushed? Should there be a law that you must sit down to shower? Should it be a law that no one is allowed out when there is an electrical storm?

How far do we go to protect ourselves from miniscule risks? How much freedom do we have to give away? How much self respect and dignity must we give away? What is too high of a cost?

Well OPs, I guess it would all depend on what I was smuggling to begin with

im gonna b an as_ & say thanks 4 the choice...really depends on the mood dont u think?...choice = freedom 2 a degree?