Full Body Scanners - Good or Bad?

[Kuya]

Having to take off your shit and having that crap blown at you while some fag yells at you is already annoying enough.

[Karbuncle]

I think we're forgetting this is an Optional service, and is only given if someone 1) Declines a full body search and 2) Looks suspicious.

Unless you go to the Airport looking and acting like a suicide bomber you won't need to worry about it.


With that being said, if i ever did fly on a plane and look like a Suicide bomber, if given the choice I'd probably choose this, at least my Genitals are only a white light against a backdrop and not actually exposed for all to see.

Then again, you know this is only a stall, if they want to they'll find other ways to get a bomb in, i don't think they'd mind to much swallowing it considering they're going to die anyway :\

[Rowe]

T-Rays don't penetrate "too far" into your body. I don't know about anyone else but I like my skin, it's a good thing to have.

Now, yes X-Rays we get do some damage to but so little it is worth it compared to the diagnostic benefit. But some people fly a lot, I think they should be made away of the potential long term danger T-Ray exposure may cause.

[Kuya]

I think this requires repetition. The thing largely blamed for the kid with the explosive taint was "intelligence errors", not airport security. And we're propping up airport security.

[Woozie]

I think this requires repetition. The thing largely blamed for the kid with the explosive taint was "intelligence errors", not airport security. And we're propping up airport security.

If you're saying this is an inappropriate response to what happened on Christmas, then I don't see how anyone could disagree with you on that. This doesn't even address the problem that allowed those events to occur.

[Kryssan]

If you're saying this is an inappropriate response to what happened on Christmas, then I don't see how anyone could disagree with you on that. This doesn't even address the problem that allowed those events to occur.

Sure it does. Everything can be solved by simply adding more. It hasn't failed the government yet, right? I mean, its still here after all. No way it could be a flawed thought process.

[willriker]

Was it that most people used to oppose this and now their saying yes, because they're scared again?

So many questions, so little answers, but apparently i'm supposed to be saying: "More safe? Yes, please! Yes! Yes!!"

Short answer is yes.

Our government has a long standing tradition of implementing policies to restrict/erode the rights we enjoy under the guise of safety. Some recent examples include using the color coded system to indicate the level national security. Green would be ok, minimal, red would be Pearl Harbor/911. The Government used this as one of its tools to make the Patriot Act more palatable. This bill is designed to make you feel safer, at the expense of your liberties. But, interviews taken of the average person on the streets showed that people were ok with giving up their civil liberties in favor of safety.

Another example would be the recent school shootings. They used this to enact more gun control laws… neglecting the root causes of the problems leading up to the shootings. Because, guns kill people; people don’t use guns to kill people. Another policy that makes you think you are safer but does not actually make you safer.

Yet another example would be why you take off your shoes at the airport. You pass your shoes through a fancy X-ray machine. There was no wiring device, no electrical cords, nothing that will make the Shoe Bombers Soles pop up as anything out of the ordinary when examined by an X-ray. But, our solution is to make every traveler take off their shoes so that they can be examined by an X-ray machine… The goal here is just to make you feel safer. It does not actually make you safer.

Guantanamo Bay is yet another example of a policy that makes you think you are safer. Certainly some of the people held there are very dangerous. But, now that we are closing it down and moving some of them to the United States… our policies used to interrogate them places convictions in jeopardy. The funny thing is the people that are actually dangerous would have been convicted in our courts if Guantanamo never existed.

Now we have full body scanners…

And the crème de le crème, the cake topper, the highest level of disregard for human liberties would be torture. In the name of making us safer, we would place people under conditions which almost every other country in the world would consider torture. This is a practice that is known to offer very little, if any, credible information. But it was done anyway, to make the people of the United States safer.

By the way, is this similar to what happens in circumstances where people have little control? I can't quite portray it coherently, so maybe an example might help. Say a natural phenomena happens, which people have no real control over, well due to that stress causing reality, people might pray, and beleive that this somehow has an effect because it makes them feel better. So, if the problem was, in the december case, a lack of proper use of intelligence, do common people have any control over the intelligence branch of the US government?

To my knowledge we have very little direct power over the intelligence agencies of our country. We have indirect power over them through a couple different methods. Communal uproars have instituted changes within the CIA. But, this is more of a method that our polititions use to safe their own butts when reelection comes around.

Another would be our vote for Congressional Representatives and President. But, this is a little more complicated as the president nominates the head of the CIA, and certain (not all), Congressman Vote to confirm the nomination. But, good luck drumming the fact that your vote against that representative as because of how they voted for a CIA nominee…

The last and usually least successful, possible way to influence the intelligence agencies of our nation is through the judicial branch of the government. But, imagine the financial costs for the average citizen to challenge the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. Then imagine how difficult it would be to present a case which overturns legislation voted on by congress. It happens, but not often.

[zoobernut]

This whole shit is a knee jerk reaction to maintain the illusion of safety. No matter what if a group of people want to blow up a plane badly enough they will find a way. They might go through many attempts before they get it right but eventually they will get it right.

Don't get me wrong I don't give a crap if someone at the airport see's a slightly fuzzy white outline of my dick but I think its funny when people think this will keep flying safe.

The picture of the guy with the gun hidden is funny too it reminds me of those infomercials where they create an overly obvious situation where their product is going to shine but it is nowhere near a real world situation. Like the detergent commercials where they rub shit on the shirt and then wash it immediately before it has had a chance to set in or dry or anything. No shit it is going to work if someone has a gun in their pants but I bet someone eventually will find a way around it.

[Maliciousmisery]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ner_promotion/

This looks like profiteering to me.

[archibaldcrane]

We keep saying "OMG AIRPORT SECURITY FAILED!"

But, I mean, the Dec. 25th attack failed. As did the shoe bomber attack. They were trying to make metal-free bombs out of unconventional materials that could be disguised to get through airport security that is tighter now than it was 10 years ago. And their explosive contraptions failed.

That's a security win. You will never be able to prevent all terrorism attempts. You are just trying to make it more difficult. And the things that the taint bomber did to try to get around airport security, resulted in him having a bomb that didn't explode.

Security made it hard enough to bring an effective, functional explosive onto the airplane. That's a good thing.

These scanners would make it even harder. Do we need it to be even harder? I dunno. We sure haven't had a US airplane blow up in a while.

[Heavencloud]

More scanning etc won't stop terrorists, it just makes inconveniences for everyone else.

[Beckwin]

Having these available as an option isn't entirely terrible, just as long as they are used with discretion and as an alternative (therein lies the potential problem).

But yeah, it's getting a little tiring after every foiled plot that we're gonna add largely unnecessary security elements. Flying will always be dangerous, however it's always gonna be less dangerous than a lot of other forms of transportation. We should certainly do our best to make it as safe as possible, but as others have noted, in this case the flaw in our safety measures was intelligence.

[zoobernut]

That brings up a good point Beckwin. People are so quick to forget that even with potential terrorist attacks figured in flying is still safer than driving a car.

[Maliciousmisery]

People blow up buses full of people with bombs. Should we start doing body scans to get on a bus?

[Brill Weave]

Only the negros take the bus. Hence why nobody cares about buses?

[Beckwin]

also, to elaborate on intelligence, if things are interpreted properly, we should be seeing the enhanced security pre-empting planned attacks, not just a furor of extra security after an attempt.

if intelligence has good reason to believe there could be an attack originating from a particular region, they should ramp up security measures then and there. machines like this could help speed up that security increase so as not to greatly inconvenience travelers.

I mean honestly, terrorists aren't completely brainless. Did any of them have plans to hi-jack/blow-up a plane in the few days immediately after the taintbomber when carryons were restricted and full-body frisking was universal? Of course not.

Introducing seemingly random, but in actuality responding to intelligence, intervals of security increase would not only be more effective in actually preventing attempts, but in and of itself would create another level of difficulty for would-be bombers ("ok, so the plan is I blow up my taint with this non-metal bomb in my asscrack.... but what if there's extra security the day I try to go?").

[Brill Weave]

I for one would be thrilled if you blew yourself up Beckwin

[Kuya]

The preferred method of attack in Europe seems to be trains. By how much has Spain and England increased security in train stations? I would imagine that they would not increase it by much, given that trains are something that people need to use often, and that means that increases in security might be too much to bear in such situations.

In any case, bombing airplanes is a perfect terrorist target, seeing as how exploding airplanes traumatize more, and that is exactly the point of terrorist activity.

[Xno Kappa]

Using fear to get pointless shit done!? This has never happened before!

[Klaatu]

when reality meets Science Fiction...

http://www.theairlineblog.com/wp-con...xray-scene.jpg

http://jannesdegree.files.wordpress....l_skeleton.jpg

http://www.geardiary.com/wp-content/...tal-recall.jpg

...we're getting there. Now if only they would start working on a flying car or moon colony...