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

reply to post by KyoZero

that does NOT mean that it won't deter or fix the terrorist issue.

Nor does it mean that it will. By your own logic in this post no evidence or statistics can be provided to demonstrate anything either way...because it hasn't done, so we "just don't know." Why you spent the first two pages of this thread asking me to give you "proof" when you were just goign to turn around and claim there can't be any is beyond me, unless you're just a troll arguing in circles for the fun of it, which I'm increasingly beginning to suspect.

Look...what is it you want to accomplish? And do you really believe that airport scanners will accomplish it? Why? I've cited you a couple times now the NCTC list of every single terrorist incident in the united states in the past five years. Four deaths, and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM at an airport.

Let's pretend your scanners had been running for the past five years. Guess what?

They would not have saved a single of one of those four lives, and they wouldn't have stopped a single event.

What are you trying to accomplish other than wasting my time?

Why do you think airport scanners will accomplish it?


[edit on 3-2-2010 by LordBucket]

OK...lets just say I was a terrorist and me and 15 other terrorists were part of a plan to blow up say 5 planes for example....we have bombs in our clothes or strapped to our bodies. In the OP the choices are plane 1 with all sorts of security measures or plane 2 with none. Me and my terrorists will choose plane 2 every because we want to kill you with the least amount of resistance.

you cannot in anyway make a 100% posit that the scanners would not have stopped it. You simply can't because it wasn't available then. It's as if you are saying a cop on a street corner at a certain time when a certain crime happened would have had 0% chance of stopping the crime. You can't predict that because at the time that possibility did not exist. If you do think you can 100% predict and event that never happened then it is you who is wasting time. Fortunately I don't get annoyed by...well anything so no you aren't wasting my time.

Now what I am trying to accomplish (since you seem to think I have some agenda) is nothing more than a debate. What are YOU trying to accomplish? If you can't handle debate without getting emotional or personal I suggest you step out because as you yourself pointed out I am wasting your time. Is that the only argument you have left?

Besides...as I have said numerous times to numerous people...

"Practice self restraint"

If I am this much of a time waster then stop responding to me. It is so simple yet I have not met but a few people who actually have self restrait. Simply nod your head, call me an idiot in your own mind and leave me br. There are plenty of people in this thread who will still discuss with me that both support and abhor my stand on this. Or put me on ignore and never hear from me again. I promise you I will lose no sleep, take offense or talk ill of you in any way

-Kyo

Originally posted by Common Sense says...
OK...lets just say I was a terrorist and me and 15 other terrorists were part of a plan to blow up say 5 planes for example....we have bombs in our clothes or strapped to our bodies. In the OP the choices are plane 1 with all sorts of security measures or plane 2 with none. Me and my terrorists will choose plane 2 every because we want to kill you with the least amount of resistance.

woa...nice name and damn fine points. It's as if some here would like to remove all security and fend for themselves. My point is that if these scanners save lives (which others will have you believe it is simply impossible despite the fact that they cannot predict that with 100% certainty) then it is worth it. I guess we should start treating civillians like the military where we have a certain percentage of acceptable loss

-Kyo

reply to post by KyoZero

you cannot in anyway make a 100% posit that
the scanners would not have stopped it.

Yes you can be certain that airport scanners would have not stopped those events, because they DID NOT HAPPEN AT AIRPORTS.

You are talking about putting scanners in airports.

There have been no deaths due to terrorist incidents at any airport in the entire US in the past five years.

WHAT ARE YOU THINKING, that the solution in your mind to the problem of "four deaths over five years, NOT AT AIRPOTS" is to "install scanners AT AIRPORTS?"

If you do think you can 100% predict and event that never happened

No, I'm not predicting anything. I'm showing you that there have been a total of four deaths in the US due to terrorists in the past five years and that NONE of those deaths have occured at airports. Therefore, I conclude that having installed these scanners five years ago would have accomplished nothing.

Why do you conclude otherwise?

What are YOU trying to accomplish?

I'm debating for the benefit of the audience. I'm totally convinced you're a soulless automaton, but the reading audience will see both sides regardless.

reply to post by LordBucket

I'm debating for the benefit of the audience. I'm totally convinced you're a soulless automaton, but the reading audience will see both sides regardless.

Wow way to go to slander and personal attacks. So far I WAS a child porn supporter and a automaton.

I am also debating for their sake too whether you think so or not.

I won't tell you what I am convinced of because I'd rather just keep the personal stuff out of it. Clearly you can't do the same for me

Clearly as well there are others who agree with me so why not attack tem with the same slander? I really love that when a person disagrees they are automatically a sheeple, a disinfo agent orany other array of personal names.

Well hey nothing I can do about that.

Maybe these scanners should be used elsewhere. Like I said in the end I support the use of these scanners. Now I will apologize for one part and that is not paying attention to things outside of just airports. The point was that this topic is talking about airports so I apologize for not tackling that issue seperately. I will stick to just airports now

Wow...an apology...guess I am not a soulless automaton

maybe I am just a disinfo agent

any other personal attacks for me?

-Kyo

[edit on 3-2-2010 by KyoZero]

[edit on 3-2-2010 by KyoZero]

reply to post by KyoZero

any other personal attacks for me?

It was actually not a personal attack. It was a literal statement in answer to your question. I believe you have no soul. Your conversation exhibits many of the traits of psycopathy. I am not conversing with you. I am engaging in an exchange with a human machine, for the benefit of an audience, as I said.

I am just a disinfo agent

Could be.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by KyoZero

 

any other personal attacks for me?

It was actually not a personal attack. It was a literal statement in answer to your question. I believe you have no soul. Your conversation exhibits many of the traits of psycopathy. I am not conversing with you. I am engaging in an exchange with a human machine, for the benefit of an audience, as I said.

I am just a disinfo agent

Could be.

Well maybe you are the disinfo agent

You do realize that you are attacking me though right? Prove that I am a machine with no mind of my own. I beg ya

meanwhile I will do my practice of self restraint and I will be done with the conversation with you. Congrats I am sure you will think you've won but the reality is you and I have reached the end of what we can discuss here without getting personal. Believe what ya want but the fact is your last post had no discussion of the OP and had all discussion regarding me. That is the definition of making things personal -shrugs-

Whatcha gonna do?

So I will leave you with this and I will even give you the last word since it seems that is important to you

I choose plane 1 because I prefer safety over no safety. I like the idea of scanners because you cannot predict the future. Some day someone may walk in with something dangerous not picked up by metal detectors and the body scanner may catch it. Maybe it won't but if the possibility is there then I say yes.

All yours Lord Bucket. Take it away my friend

now to the rest I will happily continue debating the rest

Yay plane 1!

-'Soulless Automaton' Kyo (I'm beginning to like that name :-p )

I'd choose plane 2 and take my chances. It's worth a thought that a potential terrorist might prefer to board plane 1 going on the assumption that most people who thought of themselves as important would be on it, therefore making a worthier 'prize' than the low-lifes on plane 2.

Some years ago there was a sustained IRA terror campaign in London. It didn't stop people travelling on the tube and buses, even on the same day as an attack.

The tubes would be closed for a couple of hours and then just re-opened.

More recently there were bombings by so-called muslim terrorists.

It's a daunting thing to be stuck on a crowded tube train in a tunnel for ages and with no information as to the cause of the delay, knowing that there have been recent incidents.

There were no calls then to have people scanned before they were allowed to travel on the tube and it could be argued that bombing a tube train is far simpler than trying to blow up a plane.

I can see that one of these scans would be preferable to a full body-search, but they should be offered to a person who is suspected of having ill-intentions. Not forced on everybody.

Just another thought - what's to stop a terrorist blowing up an airport without setting foot on a plane? It might not look so spectacular but it would still make a point. Perhaps everyone should be scanned before being allowed into the airport itself - if they must be scanned.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by berenike]

reply to post by berenike


That's totally fine. I am just saying I think this would help. Taking steps to a safer airport. Now you bring up a fine point.

Not arguing at all but let me ask you this; how would this terrorist attack without entering the airport?

I am very interested in the possible ways

-Kyo

Originally posted by KyoZero

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by JJay55

What has affected me is all the people overreacting to the event. Changes in security measures at airports. People babbling incessantly about how the "world is different." Conversations like this one in which people try to justify to me that I need to get naked on camera so they can feel safe.


[edit on 3-2-2010 by LordBucket]

As opposed to people overreacting to a non-existant child porn ring due to airport scanners?

See the thing is you twisted my words..quite well in fact

We do not have widespread scanners true. We don't have stats yet...true

that does NOT mean that it won't deter or fix the terrorist issue. It only means tha we have yet to see. You apparently have no statistics regarding the scanners but have instantly written them off as pointless. Meanwhile you jump into this few-page-long tirade regarding cild porn which you finally recanted when you realized that it had no basis. Who is overreacting?

-Kyo

Actually some people would be very surprised about what the NSA and other alphabet agencies are looking at. Have any naked photos of your wife? Wanna see some? Heh, old joke. And no the agencies aren't taking photos of your wife but they have the capability anytime anyplace.
Face recognition is in many places you wouldn't suspect also.
Further, most of us aren't that important to watch anyway, so quit flattering yourself... not you Kyo... just in general.

Originally posted by KyoZero
Not arguing at all but let me ask you this; how would this terrorist attack without entering the airport?

I am very interested in the possible ways

-Kyo

Exactly, squash the source. Unfortunately there are cells in place that are armed and ready for the blessing from the imams.

Originally posted by KyoZero
reply to post by berenike

 

Not arguing at all but let me ask you this; how would this terrorist attack without entering the airport?

I am very interested in the possible ways

-Kyo

I meant that if people must be scanned, better to do it before allowing them into the airport. That way there wouldn't be an attack - if the scans do the job they are supposed to do.

reply to post by berenike


AH!

Now that is a fine idea. Thanks for the clarification

-Kyo

Originally posted by berenike

Originally posted by KyoZero
reply to post by berenike

 

Not arguing at all but let me ask you this; how would this terrorist attack without entering the airport?

I am very interested in the possible ways

-Kyo

I meant that if people must be scanned, better to do it before allowing them into the airport. That way there wouldn't be an attack - if the scans do the job they are supposed to do.

In a security meeting we discussed that a terrorist could indeed take out the long lines waiting to be scanned.
But there are also plans of hijacking ambulances and driving them loaded with explosives into emergency rooms at hospitals. That's not planned until there are a dozen attacks on US soil though.
But the intelligence gleaned out there is quite specific and there are cells that have been in place for some time now.
This hypothetical thread is kinda funny. It's just a phish for those who want to blast any effort of security and spew Anti-Americanisms.

reply to post by JJay55


Honestly it felt that way to me as well.

Usually when I see scenario types it feels like there is an agenda somewherer

Maybe it was totally benign though...who knows

-Kyo

Originally posted by JJay55
This hypothetical thread is kinda funny. It's just a phish for those who want to blast any effort of security and spew Anti-Americanisms.

I don't want to do either of those things, but I don't support the use of these scanners (which are in use in the UK as well as America).

I just think that if people are going to be subjected to those sorts of invasions the equipment should be used in a more efficient way than is currently being planned.

reply to post by berenike


What if they found a second generation one tht didn't focus on the body so much?

-Kyo

reply to post by KyoZero


What if they found one that only made an image of illegal goods secreted in or around the body

reply to post by berenike


I would strongly support such a machine

When I was in the Air Force I was a 2W2 and every single time we entered we had to pass our stuff through xray belts...I had a friend not tell anyone and then he rode the machine through...he might be sterile now but dang was that Xray awesome!

I admit that it would be nice to have a good security measure without true invasion. I guess I just don't see the invasion but I can see how some might

-Kyo