Airport body scanners are saving and transmitting pictures

Supernova wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40218074/?gt1=43001


And it's said the same problem could be occurring with the full body scanners in which you show up naked on the screen. And of course, there are always the people who say 'oh well if it keeps us safe from 'the arabs' then it's worth it, if you don't like it, stay home'. It's pathetic how much freedom and liberty people are willing to throw away for a little bit of security, or rather the illusion of security.

Nystyle709 wrote: Damn, what's going on? I agree again. That full body scanning is complete bullshit. It's unconstitutional to violate someone's privacy and civil rights on the account of terrorism or whatever you wanna come up with. Maybe if this country stopped fucking people over, the terrorists won't attack them. You are NO safer from terrorists than you were on September 10, 2001. The government is just coming up with any excuse to do bogus shit.

So, what are you suggesting? That we just let ppl board planes, carryon bags in hand without any search procedure at all?

Oh, check the bag maybe? for what? You can carry explosives in your underwear.

Of course no one would ever hide explosives in their underwear or their shoe and especially in any carryon luggage.

BTW, there is nothing in the constitution that says a private carrier can't establish rules to travel on their conveyance. You have free choice - don't fly. I don't fly anymore because it has deteriorated to the quality of Greyhound, only more expensive and more dangerous.

Supernova wrote: And it's said the same problem could be occurring with the full body scanners in which you show up naked on the screen. And of course, there are always the people who say 'oh well if it keeps us safe from 'the arabs' then it's worth it, if you don't like it, stay home'. It's pathetic how much freedom and liberty people are willing to throw away for a little bit of security, or rather the illusion of security.

Nystyle709 wrote:
Damn, what's going on? I agree again. That full body scanning is complete bullshit. It's unconstitutional to violate someone's privacy and civil rights on the account of terrorism or whatever you wanna come up with. Maybe if this country stopped fucking people over, the terrorists won't attack them. You are NO safer from terrorists than you were on September 10, 2001. The government is just coming up with any excuse to do bogus shit.

Supernova wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40218074/?gt1=43001


And it's said the same problem could be occurring with the full body scanners in which you show up naked on the screen. And of course, there are always the people who say 'oh well if it keeps us safe from 'the arabs' then it's worth it, if you don't like it, stay home'. It's pathetic how much freedom and liberty people are willing to throw away for a little bit of security, or rather the illusion of security.

Shale wrote:
So, what are you suggesting? That we just let ppl board planes, carryon bags in hand without any search procedure at all?

Looks like someone has a penchant for being over dramatic as well. Did I say that? Please tell me where I implied that there should be NO scanning whatsoever of people and their property.

Oh, check the bag maybe? for what? You can carry explosives in your underwear.

Word? No shit? Well, if I can recall correctly, dude got through scanning with that shit in his underwear overseas. Perhaps they are the ones who need to upgrade their scanning procedures instead of using that as excuse to look at people in buff here.

Of course no one would ever hide explosives in their underwear or their shoe and especially in any carryon luggage.

LOL. Have you been to an airport lately? First of all, they already had full body scanning at all airports prior to this introduction of scanning just to get a look at your naked ass. When I go to the airport to board a flight, they make me take off my shoes. They thoroughly check me and my bag that goes through scanning. If this world is so damn high tech that they could detect fucking Motions hair oil and Colgate toothpaste in my bag (which they did and made me throw out because it was in an over 3 oz bottle/tube), then they can check for explosives without having to look at your naked rear end. It's the principle of the whole thing. People aren't comfortable with random people looking at their bodies. Unless I authorize you to pull them off later, you don't need to be looking at my Vicky Sees. And.I.GAU-RAN-TEE. you're going to hear some news story about some perv just 'doing his job' and getting off by looking at naked X-rays. Bonafide peep show. And what about children? They should be subjected to naked, full body scans too? Bottom line: it really wasn't needed. Especially since these scans don't even detect what could be in someone's body cavity (i.e. asscrack). It's a gross invasion of privacy.

BTW, there is nothing in the constitution that says a private carrier can't establish rules to travel on their conveyance.

They can establish whatever they want. But this is want the 4th Amendment says:

Amendment IV[size=18]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't feel secure in my person. It can be argue that X-ray scanning is an unreasonable search (which it is).

You have free choice - don't fly. I don't fly anymore because it has deteriorated to the quality of Greyhound, only more expensive and more dangerous.[/size]

You don't have to fly, but you're basically saying that they should have the right to look at your naked ass without your permission because you might be carrying an explosive like the previous nut. That they should scan because they have reasonable probable cause that every single millionth person that travels by air is carrying an explosive in their underwear. They spun that bull to get people to think that it's only a security measure when they're really violating your rights and you bought it. Hook. Line. Sinker.

alan smithee wrote: ...Shale, it looks like you're not in step with the ACLU on this.

No, I've been a card carrying member for decades - but I don't agree with all their stances - and I tell 'em about it.

I'm a loose cannon in many liberal organizations.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Looks like someone (else) has a penchant for being over dramatic as well. ...

RedBedroom wrote:I don't mind any type of scan, no matter the clarity. However, I don't think that they should be saved under any circumstance other than if they found something illegal.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Forgiveness_Man wrote:I think the pic thing's dumb; but yet another reason why I don't fly.

RedBedroom wrote:I don't mind any type of scan, no matter the clarity. However, I don't think that they should be saved under any circumstance other than if they found something illegal.

Shale wrote:IDK, I cannot understand all this protest about security precautions that have a PROVEN valid reason for being implemented.

Security isn't supposed to VIOLATE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS! What part of that don't you get? Have all the security you want. However, you're not supposed to violate people in order to do so. I'm jacking your quote Alan:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Shale, it looks like you're not in step with the ACLU on this.


Are you forgetting that two huge World Trade Center buildings were taken down with carpet knives?

I've flown before and after 9/11. And trust me when I tell you.....they HAVE beefed up security tremendously since the attacks. I remember being able to watch them refuel the planes. I remember being able to say goodbye to and greet people on the tarmac. They don't do that anymore. Security ain't lax.

That stupid fanatic whose shoe bomb didn't explode would have taken that plane down if his device had worked. And that same explosive material can be stuffed in your butt crack or around your junk.

These body scans don't even catch anything in your butt crack! You'd have to do a cavity search. So what, they're going to tell people to bend over and spread 'em now? Police officers who arrest people can't even strip search them unless they get permission to do so, and they have to have reasonable probable cause to get permission to do so. Like I said, if they can detect something as minute as toothpaste, they should be able to at least detect explosive material. If someone is coming through the scan and something is going off and they check your bag and that's clean and then you go through the scan again and you're still going off......then boom....take 'em to the X-ray scan and find out what's going on. That's when it should be used. Nobody is against searching. It's unreasonable searching.

Each of these successful and failed attempts make us close the stable door after that horse got out, but it may prevent others from getting out, hence the thoro body searches for non metal explosive devices.
We aren't living in the quaint old days of civility where I managed to take a Ruger 44 magnum onto a plane in a briefcase in 1966. The world has changed, get used to it.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I'm quite aware that the world has changed. But I don't live in fear. And I don't allow people to feed me bullshit to justify violating my CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy. Sorry, it doesn't fly with me.

Shale wrote:Are you forgetting that two huge World Trade Center buildings were taken down with carpet knives? That stupid fanatic whose shoe bomb didn't explode would have taken that plane down if his device had worked. And that same explosive material can be stuffed in your butt crack or around your junk.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

I am sure they will find a way around that too. But just cause some terrorist wants to stick a bomb up his crotch doesn't mean I enjoy some pervert copping a feel of the guys. So yet again, another reason I have no desire to fly.

Nystyle709 wrote:Security isn't supposed to VIOLATE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS! What part of that don't you get? Have all the security you want. However, you're not supposed to violate people in order to do so.

Shale wrote:
OK, no more arguments with obtuse ppl.

I'm obtuse? Present an argument that differs in opinion and you assume that I'm not intelligent? LOL. Now see normally, Nystyle would nicely render her own personal dig in response to this, but fortunately for you, my parents taught me to always respect my elders.

Tell me how you would ensure that terrorists could not take down a plane without invading people's privacy who would board that plane.

And tell me how would YOU ensure that it would most definitely be prevented? Think we're the only smart motherfuckers in the world? If they wanted to bring something on the plane and they find another way to do it, all this X-ray scanning would be pretty much null and void and you just violated 40 million passengers in process. Apparently you're having trouble reading because I NEVER said people shouldn't be scanned.

I'm apparently uninformed how that can be done.