Full body scanners. Do you have a problem with them?

[CoderGuy]

I fly a lot and hate it and feel our security is a complete joke. Just because nothing has happened (other than attempts) doesn't mean the system is "working".

I think eventually real strip searches would be necessary, so as an alternative to having to remove all my cloths and let some rent-a-cop feel me up, I would rather have some rent-a-cop see me on the screen.

CG

[bakerbarber]

These things can only see what's under your clothes.

If someone is committed enough to destroy a plane, and themselves in the process, hiding something in an orifice would be a small step.

Here's an idea. treat people with common sense and profile terrorist looking shit heads and leave little old ladies and normal people alone. Seriously one shoe bomber and we all have to do the sock shuffle?

I'd rather give up my safety than my privacy and dignity. Eventually if any more attacks do succeed a few real MEN might grow their BALLS back when they fly and kick a would-be terrorists ass before he gets to follow through.

People are too busy trying to ignore each other and listen to their ipods and read their magazines to even speak to the person sitting next to them.

These scanners are utterly insane.

[Old Frothingslosh]

Here's an idea. treat people with common sense and profile terrorist looking shit heads and leave little old ladies and normal people alone. Seriously one shoe bomber and we all have to do the sock shuffle?

Great idea, but it makes too much sense.

[cyrax777]

no i dont trust the gov not to mention even with a scanner theres so much shit you could use to improvise a weapon with thats mundane. pens heavy book, cd,etc. just acknowledge that nuts are going to try and the best defense is a armed and knowledgeable populace

[Premium Parrots]

You all have good points and I agree that it is too much of an invasion of privacy. Can a private individual purchase one of these. I could see having one at my front door.

[sgreger1]

You all have good points and I agree that it is too much of an invasion of privacy. Can a private individual purchase one of these. I could see having one at my front door.

LOLOLLOO, can't wait for someone to find out these things are wifi enabled and hack the feed using 29$ worth of equipment bought at walmart lol.

[sgreger1]

These things can only see what's under your clothes.

If someone is committed enough to destroy a plane, and themselves in the process, hiding something in an orifice would be a small step.

Here's an idea. treat people with common sense and profile terrorist looking shit heads and leave little old ladies and normal people alone. Seriously one shoe bomber and we all have to do the sock shuffle?

I'd rather give up my safety than my privacy and dignity. Eventually if any more attacks do succeed a few real MEN might grow their BALLS back when they fly and kick a would-be terrorists ass before he gets to follow through.

People are too busy trying to ignore each other and listen to their ipods and read their magazines to even speak to the person sitting next to them.

These scanners are utterly insane.

You sound like a xenophobic racist anti-semite america hating capitalist.

And profiling? You mean like taking note of the fact that all terrorists seem to be of a certain religion or descent? Unpossible!


Your right, if there was even 1 guy with half a nut on the 9-11 planes, that thing would never have gone into a building. The passengers let it happen. They had nothing but box cutters.

[truthwolf1]

DEEP ROTTING FEAR
value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I8ibl4nPmRE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Roo]

I think you all have valid points and I can see eye to eye with many of them. That said...

sgreger1:

And profiling? You mean like taking note of the fact that all terrorists seem to be of a certain religion or descent? Unpossible!

Of course I see your point, let me say. The majority of Islamic terrorists have Arabic names. And I don't mean they are all Arabic as in Saudi, or ethnically Arab, but whether they come from Nigeria, London, Jordan, Egypt, wherever, their names are identifiably Arabic. There's the problem. So many muslims in all corners of the world take Arabic names that screening every such passenger would amount to nothing less than... drum roll for the ultra PC comment... extreme religious discrimination. Is it really fair to identify every eligible schmuck as muslim based on their name or nationality and pull em aside for extra screening? That is just humiliating, not to mention time consuming, and it does not represent the religious tolerance in our constitution either, and I know you love the constitution...

Seriously, consider all the poor bastards with names like Muhammed Al-Shareef or whatever that have to travel all the time and get shit from everybody. All I'm saying is that targeting guys with Arabic names, or the poor Sikhs who get shit on everywhere because they wear beards and turbans everyday, you will waste far too much time and look like an ass every time some Muslim dude just wants to board a plane, and too many people will slip through the cracks: Guys with names like Richard Reid, or Indonesian or Philipino wackjobs who look nothing like your posterboy terrorist, or North Africans without Arabic names, or Uzbeks with names like you've never seen before, or some dude from the Bronx... I do agree that the time spent to take extra security measures is better spent on checking out the obvious suspect over grandma or the cute college girl, don't get me wrong. But targeting all muslims and people of "a certain descent" is impractical and "un-American", if I may.

So I voted yes for a couple reasons: Who cares if some TSA dude sees you vaguely naked? I don't like being seen naked by strangers either, but if I'm unaware and I'm one of several thousand in a day, I really don't care. I don't care if it's stored somewhere, what is it gonna show up online? It's like if you were walking into your room after a shower, naked as the day is long, and someone across the street caught a glimpse. What do you do? Freak out about it or just laugh? I think the ability to freely tap my phone is a far more worrisome infringement on my privacy than copping a looksy at my privates. Another reason is that, if it were done smartly, money could be saved on this "war on drugs". If the government is going to insist on spending billions on it, these machines are a drop in the bucket and imagine the effectiveness of preventing anyone from strapping kilos of dope to themselves and cruising through customs. It would be very effective. And I also argue that it would do a lot more to prevent guys from carrying non-metallic explosives through security than our current system. And are we sure the machines can't detect objects crammed up your kiester?

So yeah, why the hell not. As far as the expense, we spend astronomical figures in this "war on terror" anyway, these machines would mean nothing financially. If anything, adding this level of security would close the chapter of on-board explosives like the terrorist groups have surely anticipated anyway, and they will deftly change tactics and targets to avoid the hassle of getting a bomb-laden fruitcake through security and onto a plane. Once that is accomplished and the terrorists move on to less secure targets, it will continue to dramatically slow the illegal importation of all kinds of crap that people strap to themselves before that taxi ride to the airport. I don't support the war on drugs by any means, but it's certainly a viable tactic for those who do.

So what are the real privacy rights at hand that you speak of? You not wanting some dude at the airport to see the fuzzy outline of your twig and berries? I say get over it. Flying is a convenience, one that comes with its hassles and frustrations. I feel safest when I fly on planes with people who have nothing to hide (except for those of us with a small stash of buddha tucked in their drawers). To make it even more effective, add dogs that can sniff out explosives (not pot). Dogs are cheap. This would all, in my opinion, put the brakes on attacks against commercial flights. We would then have to worry about the next form of attack in the making. So why not close each avenue to destruction as it arises and move onto the next, instead of taking the approach that there is nothing that can be done, it's gonna happen anyway.

Oh yeah, I'm not done yet (zzzzzzz). sgreger, your comment about the A-bombs in Japan bringing down the hammer of justice was shitty man. Yeah, the Japanese were kicking our asses for a minute there and they were out for nothing less than domination of half the world, but our use of the bombs was cowardly, inhumane, and maybe worst of all, experimental. If SEALS had crept on Hirohito ninja-style and slit his throat from behind as we simultaneously overtook Iwojima and held several hundred prisoners of war who's lives were contingent on the Empire's surrender, that would have been some hammer of justice. Toasting scores of innocent civilians is not justice. Suggesting that we unleash that indiscriminate destruction again, not to mention escalate world conflict to the worst case scenario... maybe I misunderstood and you didn't mean we should A-bomb anyone. That would be the worst call we could possibly make.

EDIT: I know the A-bombs worked in terms of ending the war with the Japanese, and I know that due to the excitement surrounding the technology, it was bound to happen. And I don't think it was "evil", so to speak. It just happened, and the opportunity for the inevitable presented itself. It's history. But I don't think it's anything to be proud of by any means.

[Roo]

Your right, if there was even 1 guy with half a nut on the 9-11 planes, that thing would never have gone into a building. The passengers let it happen. They had nothing but box cutters.

Damn! You could have saved 9/11! God if it weren't for those pussies on that flight, had you been on that plane, we wouldn't even be in this mess! LOL you did just put the blame squarely on the passengers, I didn't even catch that the first time around. Sorry dude, not trying to be your new Faust. You say some crazy shit sometimes though. So do I.

[Snusophile]

Your right, if there was even 1 guy with half a nut on the 9-11 planes, that thing would never have gone into a building. The passengers let it happen. They had nothing but box cutters.

Damn! You could have saved 9/11! God if it weren't for those pussies on that flight, had you been on that plane, we wouldn't even be in this mess! LOL you did just put the blame squarely on the passengers, I didn't even catch that the first time around. Sorry dude, not trying to be your new Faust. You say some crazy shit sometimes though. So do I.

You can't blame the passengers for this. Until 9/11, getting hijacked meant a flight to Cuba and some ransom money. Sitting still was the rational thing to do at the time. Of course, the word finally got to flight 93 via phone of the events unfolding, and they realized that they were part of a suicide mission, and then they DID retaliate and kick some serious ass. The plane went down, but it missed its target. Now we know better, and that's why the Detroit passengers did what they did.

In addition to the box cutters the hijackers carried, they also had on their person mace (which they sprayed throughout first class, making it difficult to breathe) and what appeared to be real, albeit fake bombs strapped to their chests. That's all it takes to frighten people into submission, and until flight 93 knew they had everything to lose unless they fought back, it worked.

[Roo]

Well spoken, snusophile.

[Liandri]

Ya sure do enjoy bringing up topics that cause their fair share of drama, I'll give ya that.

[WickedKitchen]

We have invented X-ray vision.

This won't stop airline terror. It might slow it down for a bit until they can get a system that works below the skin.

Think though...for every hottie that walks through there's going to be several messes that you'll have to look at too. Someone should photoshop one of those fat plumber's asses just for ha=ha's. Or a naked Susan Boyle. Ugh...

I'm a bit of a perv and this makes me smile...that is until I have to picture my mom or my grandmother (she's 93) in this state.

[sgreger1]

Of course I see your point, let me say. The majority of Islamic terrorists have Arabic names. And I don't mean they are all Arabic as in Saudi, or ethnically Arab, but whether they come from Nigeria, London, Jordan, Egypt, wherever, their names are identifiably Arabic. There's the problem. So many muslims in all corners of the world take Arabic names that screening every such passenger would amount to nothing less than... drum roll for the ultra PC comment... extreme religious discrimination. Is it really fair to identify every eligible schmuck as muslim based on their name or nationality and pull em aside for extra screening? That is just humiliating, not to mention time consuming, and it does not represent the religious tolerance in our constitution either, and I know you love the constitution...

Lol, extreme religious discrimination! The fact is that while certainly not all terrorists are muslim, the uber vast majority are. So, therefore, if we were really trying to fight terrorism, it seems like it would not be something to take off the table. It would be like if suddenly there were bombings and beheadings all over the world by nothing but Christians with the last name Woods, it would not seem like a bad idea to start profiling people named woods. Like you said, if they have nothing to fear than what's wrong with a little hassle? You feel okay with the rest of us who have nothing to fear being hassled, yet you don't seem to want to address the 400 lb gorilla in the room which is the fact that terrorism seems to be specific to muslims in today's age.

Seriously, consider all the poor bastards with names like Muhammed Al-Shareef or whatever that have to travel all the time and get shit from everybody. All I'm saying is that targeting guys with Arabic names, or the poor Sikhs who get shit on everywhere because they wear beards and turbans everyday, you will waste far too much time and look like an ass every time some Muslim dude just wants to board a plane, and too many people will slip through the cracks:

You mean like the current system, in which we are all hassled but they still slip through the cracks? It would seem wiser imo to focus our resources on those who seem to fit a certain profile is all I was saying, as opposed to spreading ourselves thin by hassling every grandma and uniformed soldier who walks through the place.

I do agree that the time spent to take extra security measures is better spent on checking out the obvious suspect over grandma or the cute college girl, don't get me wrong. But targeting all muslims and people of "a certain descent" is impractical and "un-American", if I may.

Not unamerican, it's been done several times. I wish there were a better way, and perhaps you are correct and it would be ineffective, but if the goal is to stop the problem, than it seems like we shouldn't take this option off the table.

So I voted yes for a couple reasons: Who cares if some TSA dude sees you vaguely naked?

Completely naked, and I do. Not just me, but my wife and children fly as well.

I don't care if it's stored somewhere, what is it gonna show up online?

It's interesting to me that you care about privacy being taken away via the patriot act, yet here you don't care if the gov has your full nude profile stored in a database. Personally i'm not really worried about it but as always, that could be abused.

It's like if you were walking into your room after a shower, naked as the day is long, and someone across the street caught a glimpse.

Bad analogy. This is more like if I want to fly, which we all need to sometimes, I am forced to allow someone to look at me or my wife naked, it is mandatory and it is government sponsored, and paid for with my money. Kind of different from the rare occasion the neighbor catches a peak (unless PP is your neighbor, then you should be worried)

I think the ability to freely tap my phone is a far more worrisome infringement on my privacy than copping a looksy at my privates.

This seems to be the newest line of defense, "Well the republicans did it, so we can too and even though we were opposed to it when the reps did it, we will now use the fact that they did as an argument to promote our plans to expand on it."

Another reason is that, if it were done smartly, money could be saved on this "war on drugs". If the government is going to insist on spending billions on it, these machines are a drop in the bucket and imagine the effectiveness of preventing anyone from strapping kilos of dope to themselves and cruising through customs. It would be very effective.

Most mules swallow it, and this does not defend against that. Also, no more sneaking an eighth onto the plane for your ski trip

And I also argue that it would do a lot more to prevent guys from carrying non-metallic explosives through security than our current system. And are we sure the machines can't detect objects crammed up your kiester?

I agree it would be effective imo. Like I said, this is a tough one because it will make it harder to target planes, but they will probably just move on to the next thing until we are inevitably bankrupt. Also, it does not see things in your keester unless you got it turtling out your ass, it only sees under clothes, not inside your body like an xray.

As far as the expense, we spend astronomical figures in this "war on terror" anyway, these machines would mean nothing financially.

Another argument I do not understand Roo, and it seems to be very favored by the democrats. "Well we already spend trillions on the war, and even though we used that fact to get into power, we will now say that since we already spend a lot, lets spend some more." It's the antithesis to change or deficit halving that was promised.

If anything, adding this level of security would close the chapter of on-board explosives like the terrorist groups have surely anticipated anyway, and they will deftly change tactics and targets to avoid the hassle of getting a bomb-laden fruitcake through security and onto a plane. Once that is accomplished and the terrorists move on to less secure targets, it will continue to dramatically slow the illegal importation of all kinds of crap that people strap to themselves before that taxi ride to the airport. I don't support the war on drugs by any means, but it's certainly a viable tactic for those who do.

But if we spend millions on every place they could possibly hit, than we will eventually go bankrupt (more than we already are). I agree with what someone on here said that these terrorists must not be that dedicated because I personally could think up a hundred low cost ways to really cause some havoc in America if I wanted to. Doesn't seem like they are trying to hard. I think they are hoping to bankrupt us as opposed to beat us with bullets.

So what are the real privacy rights at hand that you speak of? You not wanting some dude at the airport to see the fuzzy outline of your twig and berries? I say get over it.

Oh yah, just that little old thing, guys staring at my nuts. If there was ever a poster boy for invasion of privacy, allowing strangers to look at my wife and daughter without clothes on as a prerequisite to flying certainly is it.

Flying is a convenience, one that comes with its hassles and frustrations.

Yes, and this will continue to be true for many industries until America looks like a George Orwell novel and we can all rejoice about how safe we feel while under constant surveillance and without rights.

To make it even more effective, add dogs that can sniff out explosives (not pot). Dogs are cheap. This would all, in my opinion, put the brakes on attacks against commercial flights.

Dogs are very expensive (though not as much as scanners I imagine, and they do already utilize them at airports.

So why not close each avenue to destruction as it arises and move onto the next

And go bankrupt in the process, allowing the terrorists to win by spreading fear to the point that we give up all of our western rights and spend all of our money trying to stop the 1 guy a year who decides to do something stupid. (It's like the terrorists are republicans or something)

Oh yeah, I'm not done yet (zzzzzzz)

TWSS

. sgreger, your comment about the A-bombs in Japan bringing down the hammer of justice was shitty man. Yeah, the Japanese were kicking our asses for a minute there and they were out for nothing less than domination of half the world, but our use of the bombs was cowardly, inhumane, and maybe worst of all, experimental. If SEALS had crept on Hirohito ninja-style and slit his throat from behind as we simultaneously overtook Iwojima and held several hundred prisoners of war who's lives were contingent on the Empire's surrender, that would have been some hammer of justice. Toasting scores of innocent civilians is not justice. Suggesting that we unleash that indiscriminate destruction again, not to mention escalate world conflict to the worst case scenario... maybe I misunderstood and you didn't mean we should A-bomb anyone. That would be the worst call we could possibly make.

We did not have the resources to send SEAL ninjas to assassinate key figures, and the whole world was racing to see who could make and use the nuke first. We won.

But no I certainly do not mean we should nuke Iraq or something, that is silly and could not be done effectively in todays political climate, plus it would kill millions of innocent people. What I was pointing out was that at the time we had leaders who were willing to make the call. This is why we won wold wars in 4 years as opposed to waging decade long wars on multiple fronts that bankrupt us.

EDIT: I know the A-bombs worked in terms of ending the war with the Japanese, and I know that due to the excitement surrounding the technology, it was bound to happen. And I don't think it was "evil", so to speak. It just happened, and the opportunity for the inevitable presented itself. It's history. But I don't think it's anything to be proud of by any means.

Rour right Roo, but i'm proud that we got them first.