Airport Full Body Scanners: Intrusive or a necessity?

[TRIriana]

This debate came as a result of my reading this article (http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/11/15/what-happens-if-you-decline-a-full-body-scan/?icid=main%7Caim%7Cdl10%7Csec1_lnk3%7C184703) on AOL. The article is also quoted below, for ease of reading:


When you ask a friend to join you for a nice weekend cruise from Miami, you don't expect the friend to be hauled away by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents into a private room where she says she was practically strip-searched. But that's what happened at Logan International Airport in Boston.

I breezed through security, taking off my shoes, putting my stuff on the belt and walking through the traditional metal detector machine. The process took less than five minutes. Then I looked over to the adjacent security line and saw to my horror my red-faced friend questioning TSA officers after she was chosen at random for, and refused to go through, a full body scanner.

My pal happens to be a Boston media personality and crime reporter, Michele McPhee. She is not a shy lady. When this tough blond makes up her mind she makes up her mind. There was no way she was going to be convinced to do a body scan if she didn't want to. So instead, she opted for a pat down and was whisked away, barefoot, by two women - a TSA officer and her supervisor - to a private room, where McPhee says a very intrusive body search was conducted.

"They run their hands inside your leg and under your bra strap and patted the front of my breasts," she says. "If someone had done that to me at a nightclub I'd call the cops." McPhee says the officers were "nice and apologetic" and seemed to feel bad they couldn't give her her shoes back until after the search, especially when she pointed out how dirty the floor of the terminal was. The whole process took about 15 minutes.

So why did she reject the full body scan? McPhee says her big issue is privacy when it comes to the images that are taken. "I have questions about privacy. I don't really trust the TSA to keep these things private," she says. McPhee says she'd also like to know who profits from the proliferation of the body scanner machines the TSA is rolling out.

With some grass roots groups calling for a boycott of full body scanners on Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving and one of the busiest travel days of the year, McPhee says she's all for it if it shakes things up.

"People need to know why we need body scanners," she says. "The humiliation of walking across a crowded, dirty terminal in bare feet, escorted by two TSA agents, dragged into a room and essentially assaulted, I really did leave mad." The TSA maintains both pat downs and full body scans are designed to find dangerous items such as explosives and bomb parts that can be concealed on the body.

Coming back from Florida, at the airport in Fort Lauderdale, neither of us was asked to go through a body scanner or given a pat down.


Regarding the article itself, my personal opinion is that the friend in question was being an idiot for refusing to just go through the body scanner to begin with. The writer of the article, Fran Golden, mentioning her friend's credentials also serves to make it sound as though the friend expected some kind of preferential treatment. I.e "I'm am x person, how dare you do x to me?"

Her refusing the few second scanner led to frisking, which I assume is the usual procedure. I find it insults people who have actually been assaulted by dramatising the frisking, particularly considering in UK airports the pat down is very quick and the same as what is described here.

I think there seems to be a rather large and hyped up misunderstanding regarding the usage of body scanners - specifically the: "They can see my/my child's/x-person's naked body!!! Perverts!!!"

But what are your opinions of them? Good idea? Bad idea? Why? And what of the scenario posted above?

[Rawra]

I have a HUGE problem with privacy and anything that excludes getting naked is my choice.

[Purity4]

What the heck is a full body scanner?

(I haven't flown since Jan 2001)

I found this article (http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-now-putting-hands-down-fliers-pants.html) about the other choice if you don't get a full body scan, or if the airport doesn't have a full body scanner, but I still don't know what a full body scanner sees, or records, or if that information/images are saved/shared.

For educational purposes, the inventor/creator of the fully body scanner ought to scan their own body and post the images for all to see on a website.

[crocobaura]

What the heck is a full body scanner?

(I haven't flown since Jan 2001)

Well, metal detectors apparently are no longer providing enough security scanning, so now they are actually using scanners that see through your clothes, all the way to your bare skin, if not deeper. :faceslap: :wtf:

[missroxor]

I think there seems to be a rather large and hyped up misunderstanding regarding the usage of body scanners - specifically the: "They can see my child's naked body!!! Perverts!!!"
This is the part that concerns me the most though I've not actually heard much about whether or not children are included in all this. It's my understanding that the scanners don't show your naked body either, I remember seeing examples on the BBC and you still see people's underwear. Still though, I wouldn't be too keen on people taking semi naked images of my son and if anybody dares to come near my son for an intrusive pat down I'll be giving them my own brand of intrusive patdowns!

As for me, I don't really have a problem with the scanners. I wouldn't be happy with the pat down but if it's the difference between travelling home and not being allowed to travel then I'd put up with it.

I do wonder how some religions will react/have reacted to it. I mean religions where scanners or pat downs would be a massive issue for women who are supposed to be very modest like in Muslim cultures.

[RoseCity]

My husband flew to SF week before last and he was one of those chosen for the full body scan. He mentioned to me that he wasn't thrilled about it but he didn't say anything just so he could get where he was going and not get strip searched or whatever it is they do when you make trouble.

[AlexandraSpears]

Extremely intrusive.

The Fourth Amendment states (obviously this pertains to us Americans only) --

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.

When you suspect everyone, everyone is a suspect, and that flies against "innocent until PROVEN guilty."

[HystericalParoxysm]

I have a BIG problem with giving up the right to one's own privacy and person. I really didn't mind the old system - metal detectors and x-ray machines for baggage, with sniffers to make sure you hadn't been handling explosives. They were not incredibly invasive.

Being subjected to a full-body scan that sees your naked body beneath your clothes in any detail to be effective is a violation of personal privacy. Your other option is a full frisking. Even if you personally have no problem with others touching you or seeing you naked (it doesn't really bother me personally), it's only reasonable to recognize that there are others who would have a BIG problem with it, even if the person viewing is of the same gender. I sure don't want my -grandmother- subjected to a choice of being seen naked by a stranger or being felt up by a different stranger.

1 in 4 women is a victim of rape - I can see where a whole lot of them would not want to be seen naked by a stranger or touched intimately by a stranger.

Religious reasons, just preferring not to have your privacy invaded, previous trauma, whatever... they've gone too far.

I've also heard of a -lot- of stories of children being sent through the scanners and/or frisked and the parent can't speak to the child to calm them, or hug them, or anything - they're kept away. I know it wouldn't be the right thing in the situation, but if someone tried to frisk my kid and wouldn't let me hug him or even speak to him to calm him down, I would -freak the fuck out- and end up arrested.

If a teen can be convicted of child pornography for sending pictures of themselves naked to their also-teenaged boyfriend/girlfriend, taking pictures of children with these scanners should also be illegal. Frisking children without the parent -right there- (and probably at all, even WITH the parent there) should not be allowed.

These additional security measures aren't going to stop anything. It's all for show, and is just ridiculous - you will never be able to stop people bringing dangerous implements on planes, unless you strip them naked. And even then, people can still learn to kill with their fracking thumbs.

What -would- make sense is to have people watching travellers carefully for behavioral cues that something might be amiss, and arming pilots (with additional associated training, of course).

[crocobaura]

Her refusing the few second scanner led to frisking, which I assume is the usual procedure. I find it insults people who have actually been assaulted by dramatising the frisking, particularly considering in UK airports the pat down is very quick and the same as what is described here.


Actually, the pat down can be very intrusive if the airport personnel wants it to be and can include rectal and vaginal checks to see if you have anything hidden there (Drug smugglers usually hide there provisions). Sometimes, they pat you lightly, sometimes it may feel more like groping, especially if you have say big boobs, they may consider that you're hiding something there in your bra.

[wickedblue]

It's not just a pat down, though. It's a lot more thorough than that. And for someone who is a victim of sexual assault, as HP pointed out, that's at least 1 in 4, that can be pretty damn triggering. So your options are to either subject yourself to radiation, which may be harmful to health, or subject yourself to being felt up which may be a trigger for a rape survivor. And none of it makes us safer. It's just a show. The scanner cannot see inside orifices so what is next? If a bomber wants to get a bomb onto a plane, they will, regardless of "security" so no, subjecting the average, innocent citizen to invasive procedures is not acceptable in my opinion.

Edit: Wait, what? Crocobaura, I've been reading a lot of information about these new procedures and that is the first time I've heard of potential vaginal and anal examinations. Do you have a source for that info?

I just...OH HELL NO. I can't even get through a gyno examine without going into shock.

[jooxis]

For some reason I don't personally care if people touch me or scan my body (guess I'm weird, hah) but I can totally see how both those things could be a huge issue for many people. It's very intrusive and to make it worse, probably ineffective as a safety tool. Also, the radiation - some people can be very sensitive to radiation so their risk of cancer may increase significantly (and what about the people who have to fly frequently?).

[lauratje86]

I know that they used to do rectal and vaginal examinations, not sure about nowadays. Last I read they still do vaginal examinations, but only if they have strong reason to expect you are smuggling drugs. Like, strong enough reasons that they arrest you. The thing I read said that they don't do rectal examinations any more, they keep you in custody until you, ummm, do a number two, and then if that comes out they assume there can't be any drugs up there..... Not sure how that all works now that all these new rules and regulations have come in.

As far as the body scanners are concerned, for me, and even for my child (if I had one, obviously my opinions may change if I become a parent!) it's not a problem - as far as I understand only trained personnel see the image, it's not stored, and they never see you or your child or whoever in person. I'd rather have that done than be patted down - I like my personal space but have no problem with being seen naked. To be honest, if the choice was be patted down or strip off in the middle of the terminal and wander round for a bit in front of all the passengers and staff I'd much rather strip!

But I could certainly imagine that it could feel very intrusive and distressing for people who'd been raped or sexually assaulted. And if they scanned my hypothetical child and he/she was upset I'd certainly be very annoyed if I couldn't go to him/her to comfort him/her and explain that it wasn't scary and it'd be done soon and we could go on holiday! That's just not on. Just what we need, the entire next generation to have airport security staff phobia......

And I also don't think it makes things (much) safer. If people want to get weapons on planes, they will figure out a way to do so..... Scaring kids and vulnerable people isn't going to help anyone.

[missroxor]

When you suspect everyone, everyone is a suspect, and that flies against "innocent until PROVEN guilty."
I don't agree with how intrusive these new security measures are but if we go around believing everyone is innocent until they blow up a plane and/or kill a bunch of people in an act of terrorism we'd be in a permanent state of mourning.

Some measures are required to attempt to weed out the bad guys and everyone should be a suspect because terrorists always learn and evolve their methods. They specifically choose methods that catch us off guard, using people we would never suspect. Remember how shocking it was when we first started hearing about female suicide bombers? Now because people stereotype and assume that most terrorist are gonna be muslim or at least dark skinned we see a lot more white/western people being recruited into terrorism.

I do detest the thought of my son or frail old mum being subjected to this but it is not beneath a terrorist to use vulnerable people such as children or old people to do their dirty work. They prove this time and time again. So as much as I don't like it, it is right that everyone should be a suspect.....but maybe this is just not the right method of checking.

[mangaroo]

Full body scanners are much too intrusive. Given the choice, I would opt for the pat-down. My concern is that the choice may not always be available because the body scanners are much more efficient and I've been pulled over for a lot of "special" security in my recent travels (presumably because I tend to purchase tickets last-minute, and that's a flag, although it could be because I am a fair-skinned blond and nothing says "we're not racial profiling" like pulling me aside).

[Purity4]

Well, metal detectors apparently are no longer providing enough security scanning, so now they are actually using scanners that see through your clothes, all the way to your bare skin, if not deeper. :faceslap: :wtf:

So... if a person doesn't wear any bra or underwear, then the scanners are showing EVERYTHING!?

[fakepeeps7]

I don't see how these new scanners would help, really. Would they have stopped the underwear bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab)? What happens if a woman is wearing a sanitary napkin when she goes through one of those machines? Do they pull her aside and accuse her of being a terrorist because she's got something "suspicious" in her underwear? Do they toss her in jail because they see a tampon and think it's a packet of drugs?

Aside from that, I just don't like the idea of naked body images being out there for all the world to see. I know they're supposed to get rid of them, but not everything people are supposed to do always gets done. I'm sure there are quite a few cases where pictures end up in private collections. I'm sure already-harassed celebrities love that prospect...

I haven't flown since 1996. Our bags were screened, we walked through metal detectors, and were given the once-over by a curious dog. Add in today's new restrictions on sharp objects and bottles of liquid, and I think that should be enough. These new regulations seem like overkill.

Plus, it seems like any time there's an incident, there were red flags that were ignored. Improve the intelligence and the way it's acted upon... and stop groping innocent travellers.

[missroxor]

When I was about to fly to Greece in August 2009 there were no Full Body Scanners at the airport in Poznań. My backpack was x-rayed and I went through a device that checked whether I didn't possess any metal objects like coins, keys etc. I think it is safe and does not invade our privacy.

Which is all good and well if your friendly neighbourhood terrorist is carrying a big metal bomb with neon signs and bells on. Terrorist know our security systems inside and out and have evolved their tactics to compensate. I've heard of plastic guns made to fool metal detectors (though not 100% sure how true that is or how effective they would be) then there was the liquid bomb thing that led to the whole limit on hand luggage liquids.....they will always come up with something to try to beat our systems which is why airport security will only ever become more hefty and drawn out as we try to come up with more foolproof methods of detecting all the new types of weapons :(

[Purity4]

Here a 3 year old is being 'searched'. If this doesn't make you cry hearing this poor girl's body violated, I don't know what would. (http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2010/11/tsa-pats-down-crying-3-year-old/)

And I'm really fucking pissed off that 'Steve' and his wife allowed a stranger to violate their daughter. I could even hear the mom say, 'Sh, it's okay." Like hell it is, bitch.

[missroxor]

Purity, thanks for posting that. As horrible as it is to see a kid that upset it was good to see that the parents are allowed to be there and even hold the child to comfort it. The bit at the end is invaluable, didn't know you could ask your for child to be taken off the random search list. I will definitely be doing that.

[pinketamine]

If the security in the US airports makes a full body scanner compulsory... then I will not fly to the US. I can't stand the idea of people seeing my body naked or touching me without my explicit permission.
I think it is a violation of intimacy, and I would NEVER allow it to be applied on my kids (if I had them). I have to add that I agree with HP and Fakepeeps.

[RoseCity]

I don't think the mom was a bitch - what was she supposed to say?
I looked at pictures of the full body images - it looks like you can pretty much see everything, just not in a technicolor way. Guess I won't be flying anywhere anytime soon.
I also saw that an airline pilot's union is advising pilots to not do the full body scan because of radiation concerns.

[missroxor]

missroxor: What safety measures should be introduced instead?
You obviously didn't understand my point. Assuming you meant what should be done instead of metal detectors and scanners because that's what your last post was about please re-read my comment: Which is all good and well if your friendly neighbourhood terrorist is carrying a big metal bomb with neon signs and bells on......they will always come up with something to try to beat our systems which is why airport security will only ever become more hefty and drawn out as we try to come up with more foolproof methods of detecting all the new types of weapons :(
My point was not that metal detectors and scanners are useless but that they have limited uses which don't, on their own, meet the needs of airport security because any half decent terrorists (and any other crazy nut jobs out there) can easily work around them with just a little more thought and effort. So I would/have never suggest replacing them but other measures are needed to work along side them to cover as many bases as possible. ome such things are already in place like the limit on hand held liquids, electronic passports, sniffer dogs, visual checks and pat downs that already existed before these apparently more invasive pat downs were introduced.

As to what other measures are needed.... I'm not a scientist/engineer/weapon specialist, how the hell would I know? I do honestly believe that it will only get worse,...they will never ease up on security measures, they will only improve on current ones or add to them. Even if they did give into pressure from the general public and abolish these new security measures they will only come up with something else. I've already expressed my distaste of the new invasive pat downs but if that is what it takes to maximise flight security then that's what it takes. I'd like to see a better solution but I don't personally know of one.

[el_flel]

There were some airplane bombers who moulded plastic explosive into flat rectangles and put in their wallet. It wasn't detected on scanners because it looked like money.

Personally, I feel that these scanners are intrusive and there will be people who would find the process extremely uncomfortable. I think it's overkill really. AFAIK there have been attempts to smuggle things onboard planes, but since airport security was increased after 9/11 there haven't been any successful attempts. If I'm wrong then please let me know, I'm not that educated in this area as I've not flown since 2005, but it seems as though we are doing a very good job already. I totally understand the need to upgrade security measures based on attempts at breaching current ones, but as I understand it these new scanners haven't been brought in as a result of an attempted breach.

[Purity4]

I don't think the mom was a bitch - what was she supposed to say?
"Get off my kid!" to the woman
"You have every right to tell a person to not touch you and have them listen to you." to her child.

Then book a train or bus back home with her child if they won't let them board without the scan/touching my or my child's body with their hands.

Just because children are younger, does not mean it's okay to stand idly by while they're traumatized and violated. Hell no.

And to tell your child 'it's okay' when it's clearly NOT okay means you are just trying to shush your child so you won't be embarrassed and/or forcing compliance physically, teaching them one must comply just cause I said so and I'm bigger than you and can make you. Instead of validating her child's feelings and fears and giving them the strength to be allowed to say 'NO" to an authority figure, as she should have done.

[mangaroo]

Purity4, I agree that a child needs to feel empowered to reject impropriety from an authority figure and they need to be supported by their parents; however, I think you're being unfair to the mother here. The child was in her mother's arms: that should be a signal to her that she is safe and no harm will come to her. I had to watch the video w/o sound, so it's not clear to me why the child was so upset: had her mother not prepared her for airport security or was the child tired and tantrumy? Every NO from a child is not, in fact, a valid response. A child who screams NO at getting a shot at the doctor's office still has to get the shot. I do hope -- once the trip was over and the child was calm -- the mother explained airport security to her and assured her that NO is acceptable and supported when she is touched in other contexts.

I certainly wish there were no body scanning or physical pat downs involved in airport security, but a 16-year-old can't get out of it by screaming NO, either.

[missroxor]

I had to watch the video w/o sound, so it's not clear to me why the child was so upset.
The father (who was also the reporter) said that she was already grumpy which was not helped by the fact that her teddy had been taken from her at the bag scanners. So she was already teary before it started but at one point she screams "stop touching me!" which was kinda disturbing. I dunno, I wouldn't want to put my own son through it but now that I've seen he's not taken away to be groped while the parents wait on the side lines unable to help I'm a little less angry about it. I think its just gonna have to become common for parents to prepare their children for what might happen and explain to them that they (the parents) will be there with them and make sure they know the difference between this kind of being touched by strangers and other kinds :(

[Purity4]

Purity4, I agree that a child needs to feel empowered to reject impropriety from an authority figure and they need to be supported by their parents; however, I think you're being unfair to the mother here. The child was in her mother's arms: that should be a signal to her that she is safe and no harm will come to her. I had to watch the video w/o sound, so it's not clear to me why the child was so upset: had her mother not prepared her for airport security or was the child tired and tantrumy? Every NO from a child is not, in fact, a valid response. A child who screams NO at getting a shot at the doctor's office still has to get the shot. I do hope -- once the trip was over and the child was calm -- the mother explained airport security to her and assured her that NO is acceptable and supported when she is touched in other contexts.

I certainly wish there were no body scanning or physical pat downs involved in airport security, but a 16-year-old can't get out of it by screaming NO, either.

The exact words of the 3 year old was to the staff member: "Stop touching me!!"

I think it was clear what the child was objecting to. She didn't want a stranger to touch her body. She made that very clear. She tried to reach for her mom to escape the touch of the stranger, and instead of saving her from unwanted touch, the mother then held and restrained her to make it easier for her child to be touched by the stranger when the child definitely had made it clear she did not want to have her body touched by that stranger.

The only thing unfair is what was done to that child against her will, with her mother's permission, and then help! That is what bothers me. The mom complied, allowed her daughter to be traumatized, then helped the offender to further traumatize her daughter. The child said, "Stop touching me!!"

[missroxor]

Please don't post such comments as they do not contribute to the discussion.
I beg to differ, I think it illustrated my point (which was related to airport security) in a mildly humourous manner....[off topic=]though I am glad you now recognise this as a forum rule :jest: [/off topic]

Sorry to dissapoint but I'm not some airport security insider :lol: what I said was opinion not fact.

[mangaroo]

I object to strangers touching my body, but I still go to the doctor, go through airport security, and ride crowded buses (no, I'm not groped, I'm just pointing out that it's a situation of uncomfortable proximity for me). Assuming that the mother was at her home airport, I suppose she could have cancelled the trip and taken the child home, but that frankly seems like an excessive response to what is a learning experience. Sometimes parents have to make children do things the children don't want to do. Its how they handle it later that matters.

[wickedblue]

The mother is in a position where she is being told by authorities that she has no choice but to comply. It doesn't make her a bitch that she complied. We can all speculate on what she should have done but she did what she thought was the right thing to do in that situation. We don't know the circumstances, either. To assume that she could have found other transportation, assumes that another form of transportation is available to take them to their destination and that they have the money available to just forfeit the cost of plane tickets plus buy tickets for the alternative transportation.

It's also worth noting here that it has been made clear that once you get to security, if you do not want to be subjected to the body scanner or the enhanced pat-down, that you cannot just decide to leave and make other arrangements for transportation. I will have to find the article if you want it but a man was recently in that very situation and he was not allowed to leave.

[Purity4]

In this particular case, the reporter said there are periodic two alarm situations, and they just happened to be there when the two alarm occurred in which everyone boarding is patted down. So I have to wonder if this wasn't setup for him to have a story, and I feel sorry for his daughter. I still stand by what I said. I feel this girl was traumatized unnecessarily.

[mangaroo]

So I have to wonder if this wasn't setup for him to have a story

I wonder the same thing myself. I still believe the mother's behavior was appropriate for "anymom" taking a fretful child through airport security, but both parents should be ashamed of themselves if they used their daughter for a story.

[RoseCity]

He said that because she was crying it made the alarm go off twice. And that if the alarm goes off twice then everyone has to be patted down. I don't understand how that could be a set up.

[simneesee]

When I flew from Indiana to Texas 3 months ago, I went through a full-body scanner. At first I was completely confused, the TA had to explain everything twice (and of course I forgot I had my belt on). I didn't feel particularly uncomfortable (except my bare feet were on the floor). I just wanted to do whatever I needed to do to get through the line quickly (especially because I had more things to carry on than I usually do and I was behind a slow person and in front of an impatient person). I actually thought it was pretty cool when I first saw it- kinda like Star Wars? Everyone else went through it and it didn't take too long (granted it was the first flight out, so the line was full of business people and people my age). I think I'd rather go through the scanner than the full-body search. I dislike strangers touching me, and it seems like it would take more time.

[Rawra]

Actually, the pat down can be very intrusive if the airport personnel wants it to be and can include rectal and vaginal checks to see if you have anything hidden there (Drug smugglers usually hide there provisions). Sometimes, they pat you lightly, sometimes it may feel more like groping, especially if you have say big boobs, they may consider that you're hiding something there in your bra.
Opening my ass is not my idea of a great abroad vacation, so I'll choose the scanner instead.

[HystericalParoxysm]

If someone is determined to get a harmful device or tool onto a plane, they will. The scanners in place now cannot detect, for example, a sheathed ceramic knife inserted into the anus or vagina. They couldn't even detect something tucked up underneath a fold of fat on a very large person, or between your ass cheeks. Scanners that can detect things in body cavities would be a huge violation of privacy - even more than they are now.

So what the fuck is the point of this shit, seriously?

A pencil can be jammed into the side of someone's neck, killing them if you hit an artery. The cord on circular knitting needles (still allowed on planes) could be used as a garotte. A belt can be used to strangle, too.

Subjecting people to this intrusion of their person is nothing more than show, making people feel safer is merely the illusion of safety and a HUGE violation of privacy.

I think the hard-to-accept fact is, you will NEVER be able to prevent violence/terrorism on planes (or any method of travel, really) with 100% certainty. If someone is that hateful and determined to take lives, they will find a way. They will bribe an airline mechanic, or find a way to tuck weapons into the seams of their carry-on luggage, or carry an undetectable explosive device in their ass... or hell, if we're talking suicide bombers, why even bother with the ass? Just have a device surgically implanted into the torso, capable of being detonated without being removed. Even if you're searched, all you have is a scar that you can easily claim is for some other kind of surgery.

Also, NOT okay with being subjected to untested radiation, and there's actual educated scientists and doctors who aren't okay with it either: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3685/cancer-ray-opt-out.pdf (highlighting and big text is a little over the top but I'm inclined to trust university professors over the TSA saying "no really, it's totes safe, yo.")

I'm not saying we should just give up and have NO security, but the type of security we have in place now is NOT the right way to do it. It's not going to catch anything more than the previous methods did. And there are a significant amount of people who are not okay with being looked at naked and touched intimately by strangers. So what IS the right way?

[RoseCity]

I've always read that the Israelis have very good airport security. I don't know if they have full body scans. I wouldn't mind going through strict security checks if there was intelligent reasoning behind them - then I really would feel safe. The US wants safety, but as cheaply as possible and, of course, nothing here can be well thought out because that just wouldn't be American.

[missroxor]

Just saw on the news that apparently children under 12 will not be subjected to the enhanced pat downs but a modified version instead (Also mentioned here (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/11/no-enhanced-pat-downs-for-kids-tsa-says/131686/1) ) I can only guess/hope that means they will not be allowed to go near kids genitalia like they can with adults. This is good but I can't help but wonder why they think it's wrong for a 12 year old to have their privates groped by strangers but its fine for a 13 year old. I think they should go by the age of consent or just make it 18 for all. Basically, if a guy can be arrested for 'tappin that' then airport security shouldn't be allowed a free grope.

On a similar note found this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/05/child-porn-fears-limit-fu_n_411769.html) article about how the UK has banned full body scanners for under 18s because they violate child pornography laws. The source is the Daily Mail though so may need verifying :rolleyes: Any hope of this being the case in the US too?

[Mistermook]

I don't know if I disagree with whether it has to be done these days or not, but -

A. TSA people are idiots, enormously incompetent security theater quick-hire idiots. If I thought the TSA was full of people who really knew their jobs with lots of excellent training I'd care less, but they are the mall security guards of travel coupled with police powers and attitudes. If I had my druthers I'd fire the whole freaking agency and start over entirely.

B. It's amazing technology, but just because you've got something amazing doesn't mean you should stop there and implement it. It's SO amazing that they shouldn't have rushed it out and figured out a way to implement it along with better procedures so as to not alienate the public. As it is this is looking like a wasted expenditure of money, because they didn't bother to figure out how to do it correctly rather than slapping the tech down like a bandage before figuring out if it stopped the bleeding.

C. The whole issue is of conflicting priorities and lack of communication. The tech is not the problem. Do you want air travel to be absolutely safe? That's impossible. What percentage of safety is the public looking for? What's the actual statistics on the threat, and does it actually make sense to implement the security expense at the point of travel or would it be better to spend your money in actual intelligence areas so as to identify threats to air travel before they arrive at the airports? What I imagine happening is we did stuff like creating a brand new agency in HSA after 9/11 and flooded it with cash - and we didn't get rid of the older agencies and flooded them with cash too. You've literally got our national security budget running in circles Keystone cops like sometimes, chasing these different organizational cultures and foci. That's almost by definition going to give you conflicts like this.

[RoseCity]

I don't know if I disagree with whether it has to be done these days or not, but -

A. TSA people are idiots, enormously incompetent security theater quick-hire idiots.
I know, like that TSA guy who was holding up a bag of white powder when he searched people's carry ons, and saying he found it in their luggage. Then after he got his yucks from seeing their reaction, he'd go, 'Just kidding!'

[HystericalParoxysm]

Indeed - I've personally witnessed, twice, in different airports, multiple TSA agents engaging in rowdy horseplay (swearing, slapping at each other, shrieking, hooting, etc.) while on break. I'm totally cool with TSA agents doing whatever on their time off, but when in uniform and in the airport terminal, in full view of travellers, I find such behavior -extremely- unprofessional and totally unacceptable.

I also hesitate to judge based on looks (I certainly don't look like much of a professional myself) but the haircuts, jewelry, and makeup I've seen many TSA agents wearing makes them look more suited for a position at a Wal-Mart checkout than being in charge of keeping people safe...

[Rectos Dominos]

Well, metal detectors apparently are no longer providing enough security scanning, so now they are actually using scanners that see through your clothes, all the way to your bare skin, if not deeper. :faceslap: :wtf:
I went through one of last Spring flying to Europe surprisingly it was at Vancouver International Airport (I was connecting in the States go figure). If it's just as effective as strip search go for it since many myself included would feel uncomfortable going through a strip search.

On a humourous note I wouldn't be suprised if TSA watches MacGyver before deciding which items to ban on carry on.


When you suspect everyone, everyone is a suspect, and that flies against "innocent until PROVEN guilty."
Welcome to post 9/11 America.

[paksetti]

I've had one of those pat-downs in Spain. It wasn't fun, especially because I don't speak Spanish, and I was a minor at the time. Two security guards separated me from my aunt, took me into a little cubicle with another scanner, fully patted me down, then just kinda tuned away from me with no warning while my luggage was still on their side. I was sitting there with a wtf look on my face trying to figure out if I could leave or if I'd get tased if I tried.

Ugh. I really hate the excessive security at airports. There was a customs guy who asked me four different times if my Aunt was really my aunt and that I hadn't been kidnapped- thought I was giving him an attitude and put his hand on his gun. (13 at the time, by the way) God, I was pushing back tears.

[fakepeeps7]

I wonder how long it will be before perverts and pedophiles start applying for these jobs because they can get paid to legally touch people in an inappropriate manner...

[HystericalParoxysm]

Considering how many TSA agents there are now, I'd say it's all but guaranteed there are -already- perverts and pedophiles in positions where they can get their jollies through their work.

[missroxor]

I don't get your sense of humor... :rolleyes:
Yeah, not many do, maybe I'm just not funny :faceslap: I don't understand why you feel so negatively about that particular sentence but ....meh.

Back on topic: Am I the only person that thinks that if we're talking about the possibility of pedos doing the pat downs then the whole same sex rule is a bit off....for boys anyway? I mean there are female pedophiles out there, I'm not denying that but I think the majority of pedos are probably male, certainly most that are gonna get their kicks out of touching young boys. Maybe I'm just stereotyping but I would feel slightly better if my son was searched by a woman...up to a certain age anyway, maybe 10 or 11. I realise there would come a point when it would not only be inappropriate but once puberty hits the kid would probably be mortified at the thought of a woman touching him up.


EDIT: I just noticed somebody disagreed with this:Opening my ass is not my idea of a great abroad vacation, so I'll choose the scanner instead.So who likes going on holiday to have their ass opened? Go on, fess up! :lol:

[ElementMK]

I have a solution. Opt for the pat down, and when they begin, use this list of phrases to end the inspection quickly:

"*sigh* Oh, my. I haven't felt this way in decades."
"Sir, I think you should inspect that region again."
"You're buying me dinner after this, yes?"
"You really know how to treat a woman/man, don't you?"
"Ooh, I might be carrying shampoo! You might have to do a private examination."
"I'm so glad I could have you to do this to me."
"Don't finish the inspection, ever!"

I think they'll get the message.

[geallach]

As I understand it, anal and vaginal examinations are only carried out if there is a very strong indication that something is wrong, and this is normally when they think you are concealing drugs on your person, like if a sniffer dog has picked something up on you. As much as I dislike the idea of a child being sent through a machine that gives off radiation or being patted down, I do not think children should be exempt from both. Terrorists, we can all agree, obviously have no respect for human life, and it is a fact that there are child soldiers in the world. Concealing a weapon or an explosive on (or sadly, in) a child is not beneath a terrorist, and if terrorists see that children are not being as thoroughly examined as adults, then they will just consider this as an easy way to get a bomb on a plane. And just to play it safe, they will probably send a white person with a white child. But one cannot help but be concerned at what kind of person is patting down your child, and I do not think one should be re-assured if it is a woman- two of the most disgusting and high profile cases of paedophilia this year in the UK were committed by women, and what is more, women in positions of trust. It is a no-win situation.

As to that story about the reporter and his daughter, why would her crying trigger the alarm?

The woman in the opening article was, I felt, a bit arrogant. One may not like the rules, but exemptions should not be made for anyone, no matter who they work for. I do not like the idea of walking through a machine that gives off radiation, but the privacy issue does not really bother me too much. Wearing a bra and undies is not an inconvenience, but I do sympathise with people who have genuine reasons for not wanting to go through the scanner. I feel sorry for victims of sexual abuse, male and female, who would find it very distressing to be patted down or have to go through the scanner. I wish there was a way around it for them, but what can be done for them? Is there a way to check people that will not be distressing for somebody?

The general opinion seems to be that the scanners do not provide much security; terrorists will find ways around them, but I do not think that the idea is stopping all terrorist attacks, but any, even a few. Overall, if the scanners stop one terrorist from blowing up one plane, will it be worth it?

I am not sure if this still applies now, but when the scanners first arrived in airports, someone travelling from a "problem" country, that is, a country that a terrorist was more likely to be from, they were much more likely to be sent through the scanner. I hope this policy is no longer in place, as it is completely ridiculous, especially as there is nothing objective about what countries exactly could be seen as a "problem".

[missroxor]

But one cannot help but be concerned at what kind of person is patting down your child, and I do not think one should be re-assured if it is a woman- two of the most disgusting and high profile cases of paedophilia this year in the UK were committed by women, and what is more, women in positions of trust. It is a no-win situation.

Yeah, I did mention that female pedophiles are out there. I am aware that being a woman doesn't automatically make you trustworthy and being a man doesn't automatically make you a pedophile however, I believe that there is a higher percentage of male pedophiles than female (opinion, I haven't found a study to prove otherwise) therefore, to me anyway, it seems logical that if there was a pedophile that managed to somehow get one of these jobs frisking kids (though I'd hope they have to go through the most strict vetting available to avoid this), there is a higher probability that it will be a man.

[HystericalParoxysm]

geallach - If a determined terrorist could still get a bomb or a weapon on a plane as it is, hidden in a body cavity on themselves or another person, then why is it necessary to uselessly invade the privacy of people travelling now to view their naked bodies or intimately touch them? Yes, they could use a child for it, as horrifying as it is. They could -still- use a child for it, even with the scanners and frisking. Or they could use themselves, hiding something up their own ass.

So I can't see how it justifies it, when it is unlikely to stop anyone halfway determined and is such a huge intrusion of one's person, for -so many- individuals every single day. The previous methods which were hands-off unless they had suspicion that you had something on you (based on metal detectors, wanding, and sniffers) were not intrusive without reasonable suspicion, and were about as effective. The old methods, I think, were fine - though there are other things I'd like to have seen them do (like plainclothes "people watchers" patrolling the terminals, looking for people displaying any odd or suspicious behaviors, and arming pilots as I said previously)... Other things that wouldn't have people basically being strip-searched and/or intimately touched just to visit their grandkids.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Other things that wouldn't have people basically being strip-searched and/or intimately touched just to visit their grandkids.

honest question--what makes a touch intimate?

(is it the touch itself, the person doing it...the place theyre touching?)

honestly i think people are blowing this whole touching thing out of proportion. unless i can receive some kind of proof that the touchers are touching for the sake of some depraved pleasure rather than doing their job to enforce security, i find it hard to believe that a touch by itself could be unconditionally sexual.
dont get me wrong. there are people everywhere who abuse their privileges. but im willing to bet that there are more there who do it for the sake of their job than because they like to.

[HystericalParoxysm]

It's the place they're touching that makes it intimate. It's all over your body - your breasts, your crotch, and your ass, among other things. And it's a touch you don't invite, and can't really say "Stop, this is making me uncomfortable." Any other time someone touches you like that, you have to first invite someone to touch you there, and you get to say "Stop!" or it's a crime - doctor, lover, whoever, unless you are a suspect in a crime and they have a reasonable suspicion you have something dangerous on you.

If you tell the TSA agent to stop touching you, you're argumentative, and YOU can be the one in trouble for it. And you still have to submit to an intimate search, whether you like it or not, without any reasonable cause to search you like that besides A) you are travelling and B) you are uncomfortable and don't want to be searched. The entire thing seems like a massive violation of the Fourth Amendment.

For the record, I have no problem with -me- being frisked. I have been frisked - with cause (I set off a metal detector, couldn't figure out what it was after removing everything I could think of, turned out to be the button on my jeans). The woman doing it was way more uneasy than me, and I told her to just do what she had to do and get it over with. I wouldn't have had a problem with taking my pants off and waving them over my head to prove I didn't have anything dangerous on me. That's me personally - I don't have a problem with nudity or being touched. You wanna leer while you frisk me? Great! That's more entertaining! Can I pick the really cute TSA agent over there, please?

But I -can- see why others would have a huge problem with it, and I am -not- okay with subjecting my own child to that kind of thing without his consent. I'm not okay with sending the 25% of women who are victims of sexual assault through a procedure that means they have no choice whether someone sees them naked, or touches them intimately, for the illusion of safety.

If this were a 100% guarantee that nobody could bring anything dangerous onto a plane, I might be willing to entertain the idea that it it's worth it. But when this will not stop people who are determined to do harm, it's not worth giving up the right to be secure in your person and against unreasonable search without probable cause.

[HystericalParoxysm]

For the record, I've been referring to the procedures of the TSA in the US, and rights within the US. Regulations and procedures vary widely elsewhere, though the huge controversy lately has been over the TSA's changes in methodology and procedures... And, well, I'm unlikely to be going anywhere else but back to the US (where I'm from) to visit family. It saddens me that I don't feel I can do that now.

[fakepeeps7]

I worry about the children. A lot of parents (well, the responsible ones, anyway) spend all this time teaching little kids about "good touching" and "bad touching". And now, potentially, they'll have to teach their children that "bad touching" really isn't bad, even though it feels like it is. And mommy and daddy can't do anything about it, because the adults doing the touching are allowed to touch them there, so you can't complain about it in this case, even though you should tell an adult if someone touches you there, because in any other case it's against the law...

Good luck explaining the nuances to a three-year-old.

[pinketamine]

honest question--what makes a touch intimate?

(is it the touch itself, the person doing it...the place theyre touching?)

honestly i think people are blowing this whole touching thing out of proportion. unless i can receive some kind of proof that the touchers are touching for the sake of some depraved pleasure rather than doing their job to enforce security, i find it hard to believe that a touch by itself could be unconditionally sexual.
dont get me wrong. there are people everywhere who abuse their privileges. but im willing to bet that there are more there who do it for the sake of their job than because they like to.
I don't like people touching me, in general. Only my family, my boyfriend and some close friends can touch me without causing me anxiety. I don't care about the intention of the people who touch me, I just don't like physical contact with unknown people, no matter where they touch me. Yeah, it is my problem and I have my reasons, but exactly for that I can understand people not wanting to be seen naked or touched by a stranger.

Also, I could have a weird/radical/whatever opinion about this... but I don't think governments/security agencies/laws/etc. can do what they want for the sake of "our safety". I would not like to be spied in my house "for my safety" and I don't like to be watched naked "for my safety".

[wickedblue]

SuicidiaParasidia: it's not being blown out of proportion. For a person who has been sexually assaulted, it doesn't matter that the person's intention may not be sexual, it could be a trigger to have another person touching them, especially when that touch involves their genitals. It's damn traumatizing.

Of course the agents' intentions are not sexual. They are just doing their job which has been handed to them from their authorities. They are not enjoying this anymore than the person receiving the "enhanced pat-down". Yea, yea, I know, there's exceptions. There are those who thrive on the power they get in that position but those are a small number of people. With such a high percentage of people in this country that are survivors of sexual assault, the odds are really good that there are TSA agents who are also survivors and performing this procedure will be just as hard for them. I do not believe that these agents (for the most part) are really enjoying this.

[RoseCity]

It seems strange though that if you don't want the full body scan which might, but as HP said probably wouldn't, reveal any explosive device you might have concealed, you can have the pat down or whatever it is, which would reveal even less.
It's like let's go through a pointless and possibly upsetting charade that accomplishes nothing for safety's sake.

[geallach]

I'm not really trying to justify it as such, I am trying to see where the TSA is coming from. I know that to a parent, nothing could justify their child being patted down, and believe me, if any of my little cousins were patted down and the experience was stressful for them I would be very upset. But, as I said, this is a no-win situation. While it is terrible, resisting would be fruitless, and would just make the situation worse than it has to be. I do however concede that someone evil enough to use a child would use one anyway. But how do you deal with that? I am absolutely and totally against any invasive procedure being done on a child. A better method must be developed, one that is not distressing for children. I absolutely agree that there are many ways that terrorists could still get dangerous items onto a plane, that there are relatively few things the scanners can pick up on, but the TSA, I'm assuming, want to guard against anything they can, so the scanners are an aid for this. Maybe they are hoping that for some it will be a deterrant, but I doubt it.

Have the scanners yet been held responsible for stopping a terrorist attack? I do not think so. Maybe they never will. But the TSA will use them in the hopes that one day, they will. I admit that I am no fan of the scanners, but I accept that there is no way around the situation. It's either the scanner, or a frisking, and until something better (hopefully not something that is more intrusive) is found, we are stuck.

There's a point. If the scanners are just the beginning, could future technology be even more intrusive? Are the scanners a lesser evil?

[Sunbee]

If you're traveling within the continental US, I can recommend Amtrak. It's not as fast as flying, but it is a pleasant experience.
I won't subject myself or my kids to this. We stopped flying in '04.

9/11 is a one time event. Once it's been done once, it's assumed that any future hijack attempt is to the same ends. If you were on a plane and someone tried to hijack it, what would you do? Would you really sit tight in your seat and hope that they'd let you go, after some negotiations, as hijackers once did? Or would you assume the hijacker intended to use the plane as a weapon and do everything in your power to stop them?

[wickedblue]

That's just it, Sunbee. It's not likely that there will ever be that kind of terrorist attack again (and why should there be, they've destroyed our economy and driven us to a nation of fear in just one attack) but the TSA will continue to increase security measures that will increasingly violate privacy and they will continue to justify it by saying that there's been no attacks since they implemented these procedures. Whether or not there was a potential for attack even without these invasive procedures in place will not be discussed by the media that loves to perpetuate the cycle of fear. After all, it is that fear that keeps willing citizens on the hook for giving up their rights voluntarily.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I'm not okay with sending the 25% of women who are victims of sexual assault through a procedure that means they have no choice whether someone sees them naked, or touches them intimately, for the illusion of safety.

sorry i tend to be singling out certain things from your post, but i do read it all and have thoughts on those parts as well. i just dont know how to phrase them at the moment, so, please bear with me.

what i quoted seems a little strange to me. isnt that way of thinking banking on the idea that all sexual assault victims will react the same way to a mandatory touching?

and, yes. for the record, i have been raped before. that doesnt change the fact that not everyone who touches me wants to rape me. rationality winning out over emotional scarring at its best. does having been raped give me the right to treat everyone like theyre an active threat?

EDIT: also, didnt you guys JUST finish saying that a determined enough terrorist will find a way to smuggle weaponry? wouldnt that indicate a likeliness or sense of inevitability rather than a "oh its a one time thing"? can you guarantee that these measures are truly ineffective and nobody will ever attempt to do us harm on the same scale again?

[wickedblue]

I didn't say that no one will ever attempt to harm us on the same scale again. I said that it's really not likely and in my opinion, the chances of it happening again do not outweigh the rights of innocent citizens to not be violated just to travel.

Then of course, there's the fact that if a person really wanted to get a bomb onto a plane, none of this security show is going to stop them anyway. So, they are putting innocent citizens through this and it's not really making us any safer.

I can't speak for HP but I don't read it like she is suggesting that all victims of rape will react the same. No one has suggested such a thing. But for a lot of survivors, PTSD is very real and can be very crippling and we do not know what exactly will trigger an episode. For me, being patted down will trigger an episode. I've experienced it. The shit nearly got me shot by a police officer when the power-hungry shithole didn't seem to grasp that I was freaking out -not- because I had weapons on me but because of the way he was patting me down was triggering a PTSD breakdown of gigantic proportions. And his search was not nearly as thorough as the TSA agents will do if I refuse the scanner. Your argument of "rationality" winning over emotional scarring is just ignorance of how PTSD actually affects people. I'm really (not saying this sarcastically) glad that you have not had such episodes after being raped but it is not so for all of us.

[lauratje86]

I don't know how it works in the USA, but from what I've heard about the use of these scanners in the UK the images are only seen by one or more (I'd assume two) people in a security centre somewhere, and then are not saved. Not are probably not saved, or normally aren't saved, but that the machine that shows them isn't actually capable of saving them at all in any way. Does anyone know if that's the same in the USA?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I didn't say that no one will ever attempt to harm us on the same scale again. I said that it's really not likely and in my opinion, the chances of it happening again do not outweigh the rights of innocent citizens to not be violated just to travel.

you didnt need to say it; it was implied by saying it was a one time thing.

Then of course, there's the fact that if a person really wanted to get a bomb onto a plane, none of this security show is going to stop them anyway. So, they are putting innocent citizens through this and it's not really making us any safer.

you keep saying that, but how exactly would one attempt to bypass the current security measures, the ones you're claiming to be far too invasive to subject oneself to?

I can't speak for HP but I don't read it like she is suggesting that all victims of rape will react the same. No one has suggested such a thing.

well show me a section that doesnt belong to me where anyone suggested a different reaction, or another reason for such measures?


But for a lot of survivors, PTSD is very real and can be very crippling and we do not know what exactly will trigger an episode. For me, being patted down will trigger an episode. I've experienced it. The shit nearly got me shot by a police officer when the power-hungry shithole didn't seem to grasp that I was freaking out -not- because I had weapons on me but because of the way he was patting me down was triggering a PTSD breakdown of gigantic proportions. And his search was not nearly as thorough as the TSA agents will do if I refuse the scanner. Your argument of "rationality" winning over emotional scarring is just ignorance of how PTSD actually affects people. I'm really (not saying this sarcastically) glad that you have not had such episodes after being raped but it is not so for all of us.

i have also had run-ins with PTSD; not over rape, but i do have my own deep fears to contend with. sadly they are much more of an everyday thing than rape is, but i understand that doesnt make anybodys' experiences invalid.

you say that, but have you tried seeing it from his perspective? from someone who doesnt know what youve endured, doesnt know why you feel the need to protect yourself? i dont expect it to sway your opinion, but as much as you aim to villainize people over not understanding you, you dont appear to be doing much to understand why they might pull a gun on you for flipping out at (to others, again, who do not know you and do not know your experiences) them.

:/ nice try, but just because i point out that not everyone reacts the same way to a specific trauma, doesnt mean you can twist it to mean that im saying nobody should react differently than me. im not that stupid, thank you very much.

[wickedblue]

I didn't say it was a one time thing. I said, it's not likely to happen again.

Are you not paying attention? They can put the bomb up their ass and it will not be detected.

Again, didn't say that everyone will react to this. We are discussing the very real possibility that it will happen to some survivors. Just because we are discussing the potential for a PTSD episode in sexual assault survivors does not mean that it will be that way for every one or that every one will have the same severity. For some, it may be really mild while others it is completely crippling.

I didn't say that I didn't see it from his perspective. I simply recounted an encounter where I was being patted down and it triggered an episode. It seemed relevant to the discussion at hand and was also a personal anecdote to counter your statement that rationality should just win over any emotional response for a survivor of rape. That statement was extremely dismissive and victim-blamey. I was later able to calm down and accept that the man was just doing his job and of course he's going to react to my reaction - Nothing I said suggested that I didn't understand that - but that's not how PTSD works and that's what I was trying to get you to understand by putting my own experience out there.

Also, I don't aim to villainize anyone for not understanding me. I'm not a broody teenager. My goal was to put a face on PTSD and explain how it actually works.

[Sunbee]

Flying planes into buildings is a one-time thing. I'm the one that said that, and I'll stand by it. It's simply not repeatable. Not with any big passenger plane. The passengers will take down any hijacker. Remember flight 93? That's what will happen with any future hijacking attempt. (A small plane, one with just a pilot could be used, of course.)

Yes, a terrorist could blow up a single airplane. But there are many softer and more terrifying targets with many more potential victims in them. Everyone here is old enough to remember the Oklahoma Federal Building? April 19, 1995 . . . yeah, some of you might be too young. A repeat of that is much harder to protect against and much more terrorizing than blowing up a single airplane.

[HystericalParoxysm]

what i quoted seems a little strange to me. isnt that way of thinking banking on the idea that all sexual assault victims will react the same way to a mandatory touching?

I didn't say that they would all react the same way. But there are a significant portion of women who are victims of sexual assault. I can see where quite a few of them would -not- like to be touched or looked at naked without their express consent. In any other situation, if someone touched you like that and didn't stop when you said no, it would be sexual assault. In the airport, you have no control over it - it's that loss of control, that power over your body, which is a major part of rape.

You can't just say "Y'know, I don't want to fly anymore." You HAVE to be searched once you step up to security. Decide it's all too much for you and don't want to? Too bad.

and, yes. for the record, i have been raped before. that doesnt change the fact that not everyone who touches me wants to rape me. rationality winning out over emotional scarring at its best. does having been raped give me the right to treat everyone like theyre an active threat?

I'm very sorry that happened to you. But you must also realize that your ability to deal with it rationally is not at all universal, and there are many people who are still seriously traumatized and can't put that level of rationality into it.

EDIT: also, didnt you guys JUST finish saying that a determined enough terrorist will find a way to smuggle weaponry? wouldnt that indicate a likeliness or sense of inevitability rather than a "oh its a one time thing"? can you guarantee that these measures are truly ineffective and nobody will ever attempt to do us harm on the same scale again?

I'm sure there will be other attacks. But I don't believe the new "safety measures" put into place will do anything to deter someone determined to cause harm to people on a large scale. There are still plenty of ways to get around it, plenty of ways to do harm, and I don't believe the invasive search methods now in place are any significant improvement over the previous, non-invasive methods. It's not a reasonable trade-off, for -every- person to give up their right to be secure in their person, for no significant increase in security.

I'm not saying we should just give up and remove all security from air travel, but that the invasive security currently in place is not particularly effective over previous methods, not particularly effective comparatively over alternative methods which are not currently being employed... And most importantly, are a huge violation of what I believe to be the spirit of the Fourth Amendment - the right to be secure in your own person, and not searched without cause. It's not worth it.


Not specifically to SP:


I think I've said about as much as I personally have to say on this matter. I won't be flying until these measures are lifted, to protect myself and especially to protect my child from this invasion of privacy that is unavoidable if you fly.

I'll just leave this right here to be considered:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Thomas Jefferson. Inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.

[TRIriana]

The quote you posted said that the person walked through a "traditional metal detector" of a scanner and that same person assumed that "they", the police officers presumably, could "see my child's naked body". First of all, a metal detector cannot see a naked body. Second, unless the police officers are corrupted, police officers really don't care about body parts. All they doing is their job. Checking for weapons is vital for airplane security, because a flying airplane is an isolated environment. If there is a bomb in an airplane that is about to blown up, then it's very likely that you'll going to get trapped and die. You may try to escape to safety (maybe use a parachute or something) but unlike a public building, where do you flee to? If the airplane is flying over an ocean, where do you go to?

I'm about to head out to the cinema (yay!), but I'll respond to the other posts later - awesome responses, by the way everyone.

I'm aware that a metal detector cannot see a naked body, I was using the example of body scanners in particular for people to discuss due to the title of the article itself, and because that would be a far more interesting debate than "So... Metal detectors: For or Against?"

The attitude of people regarding scanners and children I was commenting on due to the responses on the AOL website, posted beneath the article.

[pinketamine]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Thomas Jefferson. Inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.

This is EXACTLY what I meant, if you start losing your rights for the sake of "security" or any other of those big words ("the nation","peace"...) you?ll notice one day that you've lost all the right people fighted for during centuries.

[starved4pizza]

I have no problem with the scanners. They're there to keep us safe. The only people who want to scream and bitch about them are people who just don't want to be inconvenienced. Don't have a problem with them? Not hiding anything? Not a terrorist? Then wtf is the problem? -_-

My bitch step mom was on the news recently, complaining about how she had to be patted down, because she didn't go through the scanner. She's really fat though, so she probably didn't fit. But they did the regular protocol, and she says she cried hysterically. Her, and the don't touch my junk guy, are ugly crybabies. they know that it's a safety measure, and required to do if you don't do the scanner. They just need to shut up and deal with it.

Regardless if the attempts are successful is not the point. The fact that people are *still attempting* to blow up planes in mid air is more than enough.

All the people who keep complaining, go right ahead. But if your plane is one that gets hijacked, and you're going to die, remember that people with common sense told you so.

I just want to know why it's only now such a huge problem. This shit started under Bush, and nobody said word one about it. Now Obama's president, everyone has a damn problem with it. But I guess Bush 'feeling people up' is okay, because he's white, or something.

[starved4pizza]

Yeah, no. Not trolling. Sorry I can't state my opinion, without you constantly stalking me to delete my posts, or shit on my opinions. This is the debate room, and I'm sharing my opinion. Sorry you don't like it, but that's too bad.

I genuinely think the body scanners should not be a problem for people. They KNOW what they're getting into, if they deny going through it. If anything, this is an "assault" on people's convenience, not their privacy. When you're going through a security system of any kind, you should NOT be stupid enough to assume your privacy will stay with you.

By the way:

Definitions of internet troll on the Web:

someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
pursuitmag.com/cyber-crime-terms-and-definitions/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=JRC&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=define:internet+troll&defl=en&sa=X&ei=HjjpTIeDOI3Lngen6OzIDQ&ved=0CAQQowMoAA

Maybe you should figure out what a troll is, before you accuse me of being one, again. What I had to say was NOT irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[HystericalParoxysm]

http://www.modyourpanties.com/hosting/24111_101121161216obvious_troll.jpg

[HystericalParoxysm]

If you're gonna call people fat, ugly, whiny crybabies, and talk about screaming and bitching and moaning and bring up political race shit rather than, y'know, responding to the points made by previous posters, then, yeah, you're trolling. Being deliberately inflammatory is not an attempt to participate in the debate - it's an attempt to piss people off and get them riled up.

The point of this forum is to have a reasonable, intelligent debate. If that's not what you're after, then you shouldn't be posting in the debate room.

[el_flel]

I just want to know why it's only now such a huge problem. This shit started under Bush, and nobody said word one about it. Now Obama's president, everyone has a damn problem with it. But I guess Bush 'feeling people up' is okay, because he's white, or something.That's only relevant if you live in the US, which some of us who have posted here don't. AFAIK in the UK it is only very recently - as in, this year - that the government have proposed introducing them (just to make sure we're on the same page, we're talking ones which produce images like this: http://www.the-gates-of-hell.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/airport_xray_scanner.jpg).


The Human Rights declaration states that:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Do you think it could be argued that scanners such as these are a breach of human rights (not saying that I am arguing this, just pondering the possibilities)?

[wickedblue]

starved4pizza, I agree with HP. You are just being inflammatory in an attempt to piss people off. Well, it worked.

For starters, security measures have just been increased to include scanners that are really invasive and if you refuse to go through them, you get an "enhanced pat-down" that includes some stranger fondling your genitalia. The people that are complaining about this are complaining because they are not comfortable with the idea of being sexually assaulted in the name of "safety". That's why we are discussing this. It has nothing to do with Bush/Obama. We've been complaining all along. It's just that it's really become a hot topic now because a white man called it sexual assault. When it was women doing the complaining, it got largely ignored.

Maybe you should read more and learn something about why people are protesting these measures before you make assumptions about intentions.

Calling people ugly crybabies because they don't want to be exposed to harmful amounts of radiation/have their naked body exposed in a scan/be felt up in the middle of an airport right before getting on an airplane, is beyond rude.

[RoseCity]

I just saw this story which kind of highlights what's wrong with the whole thing. The people doing the hand searches don't seem to be properly trained and people who have special needs aren't being accommodated. You don't know what humiliation you're going to encounter when you arrive at the airport.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news#

[Mistermook]

That's exactly the issue: There might be an agency and level of training that could really utilize these scanners and searches without causing issues, but the TSA is not that agency. They're a joke - never really given a good security script and training even back in the day, they've been hastily expanded since 9/11 with all sorts of changing and different demands. They were mall cops before, barely prepared to deal with the occasional idiot causing trouble trying to bring a sword onto a plane or a purse full of firecrackers, and now they're worse, the same folks or newer set upon the public with greater authority, invasive technology, and even less training.

I've been trying to think of how to fix it, and the only thing I can think of is to slap the TSA away from HSA and into another agency that's got a longer history and pool of experienced people that they could throw into the mix, either that or disband them entirely and make each airport's security a local police's matter with some caveats of performance and regulation. So maybe the TSA could function right if the FBI were the agency looking at being embarrassed by them, or the local police departments could be pushing beat cops into the role of figuring out how to make people safe. I'd prefer something like the FBI, but I don't think the local PDs would do a poorer job of things than the TSA at least. It certainly would reflect less badly on travel to the US as a whole and more on individual destinations within the country, which could be useful in promoting tourism.

[el_flel]

I just saw this story which kind of highlights what's wrong with the whole thing. The people doing the hand searches don't seem to be properly trained and people who have special needs aren't being accommodated. You don't know what humiliation you're going to encounter when you arrive at the airport.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news#You know, for me, I think this is the biggest complaint I have about the whole thing. Scans and pat-downs should not, and cannot, be a one-size-fits-all procedure due to the level of intimacy involved. The guy mentioned in that article is just one person out of many who would require special measures for a huge variety of medical conditions - both physical and mental - in which something like this could be extremely embarrassing and distressing. If governments are going to insist on administering these procedures then they need to make sure those who carry them out are really well trained to be flexible, sensitive, and discrete.

[RoseCity]

You know, for me, I think this is the biggest complaint I have about the whole thing. Scans and pat-downs should not, and cannot, be a one-size-fits-all procedure due to the level of intimacy involved. The guy mentioned in that article is just one person out of many who would require special measures for a huge variety of medical conditions - both physical and mental - in which something like this could be extremely embarrassing and distressing. If governments are going to insist on administering these procedures then they need to make sure those who carry them out are really well trained to be flexible, sensitive, and discrete.
I don't know if you saw the other link in the story about what's happening to women with breast prostheses - that blew my mind. And they're doing the searches right in front of everybody if they can get away with it.

[missroxor]

I don't know if you saw the other link in the story about what's happening to women with breast prostheses - that blew my mind. And they're doing the searches right in front of everybody if they can get away with it.
I saw an interview with that women on the news. There's some ambiguity over whether or not it happened before or after they introduced they rule about not taking off prosthetics but the rule is that they can (or maybe have to, I'm not sure) ask to see and/or touch them.

She said one of the TSA agents apologised to her and said that when she heard what she had to do that day she didn't want to go to work. I do kinda feel a bit bad for them. I mean some of them seriously need a slap upside the head and a re-education in common courtesy and decency but others are just trying to do their job so they can feed their family.

I heard on the news that people are planning to hold a protest called opt out day on Wed where they are calling for everyone to refuse body scans so they have to spend more time doing more pat-downs and slow down the queues. Personally I'd be pissed off if I was stuck at the back of this massive line or even missed my plane so people could make a point.

[pinketamine]

“I am a good American and I want safety for all passengers as much as the next person," Sawyer said. "But if this country is going to sacrifice treating people like human beings in the name of safety, then we have already lost the war.”

For me, this quote of the man the article talks about, says everything.

I have no problem with the scanners. They're there to keep us safe. The only people who want to scream and bitch about them are people who just don't want to be inconvenienced. Don't have a problem with them? Not hiding anything? Not a terrorist? Then wtf is the problem? -_-

Many of us had already explained which was the exact problem.


I genuinely think the body scanners should not be a problem for people. They KNOW what they're getting into, if they deny going through it. If anything, this is an "assault" on people's convenience, not their privacy. When you're going through a security system of any kind, you should NOT be stupid enough to assume your privacy will stay with you.

No. Not all security systems are as invasive as a system that allows the security agents to see your naked body. Checking your clothes looking for hidden metals is way less invasive than contemplating your body, even if it is only for security reasons.

Three or four days ago I read in the newspaper that some pictures taken with Full Body Scanners (pictures of a hundred different persons which had gone though the system) had been filtered in the UK, and ended in the internet. Yes, people that went through the full body scanner for security reasons can now be seen naked on the internet, without their permission. Maybe you don't see their faces, but in my opinion it is still a big violation of their privacy.

[fakepeeps7]

Personally I'd be pissed off if I was stuck at the back of this massive line or even missed my plane so people could make a point.

Gawd... Some human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly) are so annoying, aren't they? :rolleyes:

[el_flel]

Personally I'd be pissed off if I was stuck at the back of this massive line or even missed my plane so people could make a point.That's something protesters want! It makes people pay attention to their plight then because it affects them.

[missroxor]

That's something protesters want! It makes people pay attention to their plight then because it affects them.

Yes the protesters affect them. Hypothetically, if I'm trying to get home to my family on Thanksgiving and pay for a ticket only to find that I'm gonna miss my flight and not get home because people are trying to make me sit up and notice/get angry about something that I am fully aware of and is obvious to everyone on the planet by now then yes, I would be pissed off at the protesters. I don't need to be told how crap these new procedures are, I allready know and I don't need to coerced into getting more angry about it when all I want to do is get through security as quickly as possible and get home to my family. I can see this just making a lot of customers tired and annoyed and a lot of TSA stressed and tired. What does it do to the government? Is the effect on them just getting some complaints the next day?

If people want to protest in a way that somehow inconveiniences the government then by all means go for it but interfering with families possibly getting to spend the holidays together is IMO wrong.

[geallach]

That's something protesters want! It makes people pay attention to their plight then because it affects them.

But what will the protest achieve? People refuse to go through those scanners all the time. They'll just end up getting frisked. There would have to be a huge group to make any impact, but on the flip side people could suffer if there are significant delays. I am not just talking about the inconvenience; someone could need to get home to a wedding, or a funeral of a loved one, or anything. Of course, there are always delays in airports, but knowing someone is doing it deliberately tends to make people very angry; strikes, for example, by staff in airports usually get people's backs up here rather than raise support for them. I understand and sympathise completely with people would be upset about the scanners; I know if/when I am confronted with one, I would probably opt for a frisking, but I am afraid the protest could cause a backlash to the protesters.

But then, I do not live in America (I'm assuming this is where the protest is). Do you think that there could be support for such a protest?

[missroxor]

...but on the flip side people could suffer if there are significant delays. I am not just talking about the inconvenience; someone could need to get home to a wedding, or a funeral of a loved one, or anything. Of course, there are always delays in airports, but knowing someone is doing it deliberately tends to make people very angry; strikes, for example, by staff in airports usually get people's backs up here rather than raise support for them. I understand and sympathise completely with people would be upset about the scanners; I know if/when I am confronted with one, I would probably opt for a frisking, but I am afraid the protest could cause a backlash to the protesters.
gaellach, thank-you for making the point I was trying (and failing) to make.

[fakepeeps7]

Let me get this straight: Protesting is okay... but only if it doesn't inconvenience you.

Must be nice to live in a bubble where you take all of your hard-won rights for granted.

The whole point of protest is inconvenience. Otherwise, nothing would ever happen and nothing would ever change. That's why workers go on strike for fair wages. That's why women marched to get the vote. Sometimes you have to make a stink in order to make people take notice. And obviously not everybody is aware of how much these new security measures are disliked; if they were, they'd be getting creative and figuring out new ways of keeping people safe, rather than just telling everyone to suck it up and enjoy the groping.

Sitting back and saying that you can't be bothered to protest (and that others shouldn't, either, because you might be late for your deep-fried turkey) seems totally contrary to the spirit of the holiday you're supposed to be celebrating. Aren't you supposed to be thankful that you live in a country where you can speak your mind? And yet you bitch when people want to do that.

I don't get it.

[missroxor]

Let me get this straight: Protesting is okay... but only if it doesn't inconvenience you.

Must be nice to live in a bubble where you take all of your hard-won rights for granted.

The whole point of protest is inconvenience. Otherwise, nothing would ever happen and nothing would ever change. That's why workers go on strike for fair wages. That's why women marched to get the vote. Sometimes you have to make a stink in order to make people take notice. And obviously not everybody is aware of how much these new security measures are disliked; if they were, they'd be getting creative and figuring out new ways of keeping people safe, rather than just telling everyone to suck it up and enjoy the groping.
The point of protest is to inconvenience the people who are oppressing you, not the people who are stuck in the shit along side you. As for taking my hard won right for granted, that's what was totally going through my mind when I was fighting for my country in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hang on, I'll just tell my service mates to come home, they don't need to spend Christmas getting shelled to shit by the very same people who are trying to break through our security systems, all they need to do to protect their country's freedom is piss off a bunch of people that are trying to get home for the holidays.

Sitting back and saying that you can't be bothered to protest (and that others shouldn't, either, because you might be late for your deep-fried turkey) seems totally contrary to the spirit of the holiday you're supposed to be celebrating. Aren't you supposed to be thankful that you live in a country where you can speak your mind? And yet you bitch when people want to do that.
I don't recall mentioning that I couldn't be bothered, I just don't see what good it will do. Are you saying that I have the right to protest but don't have the right to disagree with the protest without being labeled a lazy hillbilly? FYI I won't be celebrating since I'm not American, the example I gave was hypothetical (which I did say in the post).

[geallach]

No one is saying protests are bad, and I am aware that the idea is to inconvenience people. I never said that I did not support the protest or protesting in general, I was merely pointing out a potential reaction. I have taken part in protests where the public reaction was quite the opposite of what we were hoping for; people said we didn't know how lucky we were etc. I'm assuming from your post that the idea is to disrupt travel around Thanksgiving? I forgot it was happening this week. As I said, I only highlighted a possible reaction. I do hope that there is no backlash.

[fakepeeps7]

Sorry. Didn't realize I was arguing with propagandists. I'll shut up now.

Say hello to Big Brother for me.

[missroxor]

Oh no, I've just realised its not me that disagrees with the protest....its THE GOVERNMENT. I guess the military really does brain wash people. Quick, think for yourself missroxor, think for youself!!!......Oh, I know, I'll join the big group of people who are telling me to be angry at the goverment.... Phew.....I'm a free now, that was close.

:wtf:

[el_flel]

Whether you or I agree with this particular protest is irrelevant to the point I was making. I was merely talking about the nature of protests; I wasn't talking about this one specifically. Fakepeeps summed up my point nicely:
The whole point of protest is inconvenience. Otherwise, nothing would ever happen and nothing would ever change. That's why workers go on strike for fair wages. That's why women marched to get the vote. Sometimes you have to make a stink in order to make people take notice. And obviously not everybody is aware of how much these new security measures are disliked; if they were, they'd be getting creative and figuring out new ways of keeping people safe, rather than just telling everyone to suck it up and enjoy the groping.It's not necessarily about inconveniencing those who you are fighting with, but inconveniencing those who will be most affected (in this case it's the customers). It's about getting people to notice your protest; about making an impact. People don't care about things until it affects them so protesters will protest in a way that will get them noticed, and the best way to do that is to inconvenience people. This is why UK firefighters went on strike on Bonfire Night and why Post Office workers went on strike for days in a row: because it gets their plight heard.

[missroxor]

The scanners/pat downs already affect everyone stood in the security lines and the TSA workers....exactly who are they trying to preach to?

[el_flel]

Everyone who is involved in flights leaving/arriving from that specific airport(s) on that specific day(s)?

[missroxor]

It's not necessarily about inconveniencing those who you are fighting with, but inconveniencing those who will be most affected (in this case it's the customers). It's about getting people to notice your protest; about making an impact. People don't care about things until it affects them so protesters will protest in a way that will get them noticed, and the best way to do that is to inconvenience people.

I guess I just disagree with what you said here. You say its about inconveniencing "Everyone who is involved in flights leaving/arriving from that specific airport(s) on that specific day(s)" because "people don't care about things until it affects them" but the way I see it even without the protest all those people that are gonna be affected by the protests are already being massively inconvenienced by the new procedures anyway and probably a large chunk of them are just as annoyed/outraged as the people protesting but just wanna get home to see their kids. Isn't it a bit like preaching to the choir? Except it's preaching to and potentialy ruining the holiday of the choir and the choir's families.

[el_flel]

Well, as I said, when I responded initially I wasn't talking about this case specifically - I was talking about protests in general - and not being one of the protesters I can only assume their motives. Presumably people are being more inconvenienced by the protest than they would be by the procedure, because they're being held up for much longer than they would be without it. Plus, pissed off flyers = more complaints to staff = more likelihood they might get things changed. And if people already are annoyed by the new procedures then perhaps seeing a protest against it might make them more likely to join in, thus the protesters gaining more support? It could even be something symbolic: by holding people up and inconveniencing them they will make others feel annoyed, which is some of the feelings that those who oppose the scanners have about them. Perhaps they are trying to get other passengers to feel the same way they do?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it - I don't feel strongly either way - but what they're doing doesn't sound any different from any other protests tbh. They want to get attention. By causing delays to a service they will get that attention; whether it's in a good or bad way might not even matter.

[Bailey Weggins]

And for someone who is a victim of sexual assault, as HP pointed out, that's at least 1 in 4, that can be pretty damn triggering.
Wickedblue, do you have a source for that? I thought the rate was only this high in very few countries, like South Africa.

[wickedblue]

I actually just quoted HP without checking the facts because I knew it was something close to that, if not exactly. Stats say 1 in 6, which is still really high.

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

[iCad]

I'm jumping in without having read the whole thread...

To be honest, I think that full-body scans are...unnecessary. I fly often; it's something of a requirement in my profession. I just flew back home yesterday after a couple of weeks spent in the Pacific Northwest, in fact. And I've always felt, both well before and after 9/11, that if someone really wants to hijack and/or blow up a plane, they will find a way to do so, no matter what "security" measures are put in place. And if they want to blow up a plane that I happen to be on, so be it; I will simply go home to God a little sooner than I thought, and I'm perfectly OK with that. I mean that in all sincerity.

Of course I realize that "security" measures make other people feel better/safer, and I realize that something has to be done or else people would likely complain about a lack of security measures. And if airport security folks want to do a full-body scan of me, I'm frankly fine with that; I have nothing to hide. (And I say that as a past victim of violent rape, although for me it was almost 30 years ago now, so I am well beyond being "triggered" by anything at this point or else I would have gone insane a long while ago. I realize that might not be the case for everyone, however.) But like I said, I really, truly don't think that such scans will prevent any terrorism that might be in the works. Terrorists aren't stupid. They know about the scans, they know which airports employ them, and if they feel that they need to, they will adjust their plans accordingly, likely using smaller airports where such scanners are not and likely never will be in use.

And there are a lot of such airports. Heck, the airport I fly out of most often is a small regional one. It has two runways that can only accommodate, at the largest, twin-prop commuter puddlejumpers that have I think 16 or 18 seats. This airport doesn't even have x-ray machines for checked baggage, much less full-body scanners. *dies laughing* Yet, from this airport, I can fly to Albuquerque, Denver, or Phoenix, and thence to wherever I'm ultimately going, without having to deal with security and crazy security checkpoints at those larger airports. This makes traveling life so much easier and more relaxing, well worth the extra money it costs. If you must fly and don't want to possibly be full-body scanned and aren't afraid of little itty-bitty prop planes, then find a regional airport from which to start your journey. It'll cost you more, sometimes a lot more, but if it's that important to you to protect your privacy, it's the way to go.

...Well, except that all checked baggage at such airports is usually opened and detail-inspected by the TSA, since these airports generally lack x-ray machines, as I said. I suppose that would piss people off, too, but perhaps it is a lesser of evils?

Anyway, in short, IMO, the only result of full-body scanning, whether or not they are excessively intrusive or useful or not useful or WHATEVER will be inconveniencing/upsetting law-abiding people. And costing tax dollars, of course. So...yeah, unnecessary. But I suppose that if such things makes people feel safer, so be it. *shrugs* Even though it's an entirely false sense of security, IMO.

[missroxor]

Hi iCad, its been a long time since we've been in the same discussion :)

I've always felt, both well before and after 9/11, that if someone really wants to hijack and/or blow up a plane, they will find a way to do so, no matter what "security" measures are put in place. And if they want to blow up a plane that I happen to be on, so be it; I will simply go home to God a little sooner than I thought, and I'm perfectly OK with that. I mean that in all sincerity.

You're not the first person to say this on this thread but I didn't respond to it before. Now I figure if its gonna keep coming up then I might as well say my piece :) First off, I agree that some people will get through, we can never be 100% safe and I can't specifically defend the new scanners since I don't know what their capabilities are.....however...ultimately I think security measures such as metal detectors and baggage scanners (and hopefully the body scanners) do actually play a very prominent role in reducing terrorist attacks.

My confidence in them mainly comes from an experience I had a few years back (before body scanners or even restricted liquids on hand luggage) when I had the opportunity to play a role in training airport security staff. I was asked to turn up in normal clothes and pack a rucksack with normal stuff as though as was going away for a night/weekend.

When I got there we (there was a group of about 50 of us) were all taken into a room where there was a couple of tables full of all manner of weapons, blades, guns, ammunition, full on bombs, bombs disguised as normal objects like hairdryers, hell, there was even a land mine in there. Obviously they had all been deactivated or whatever to make them safe for us to handle. Our role was to choose as many weapons as we wanted and hide them on our person or in our bags then walk through the metal detectors. If the metal detectors went off they had to use the wands on us. We repeated this, choosing different things and hiding them in different places for the entire day, it was a lot of fun. Some things got through but almost all of the things were found. In fairness, allthough the students didn't know what we had or where it was, it was a training situation so they knew to expect something but every single one of the weapons that we were messing around with were actuall items that had been confiscated at security using metal detectors. :blink:

Like I said, I can only vouch for metal detectors but I doubt that these scanners were brought in without some kind of testing maybe similar to the above to check that they can actually detect things and that with x amount of training your average TSA agent can read them well enough. (If not, then srsly, wtf?!)

Regardless of how effective any of the security measures are at detecting threats they are definitely a deterent to a certain extent. Sometimes a visual deterant is all that makes the difference between an attack and no attack. Terrorists will always keep coming up with new, more imaginative ways to get us but why shouldn't we make it difficult for them by placing as many obstacles as possible in their way? Soooo.....I don't wholly disagree with the "it doesn't matter how much security we have, they're gonna attack anyway" kind of statements but I would definitely caveat it with "but that doesn't mean we should just roll over and let them get on with it".

[wickedblue]

This is sexual assault. And it's legal.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/abc-producer-tsa-patdown-worse-gynecologist/

[RoseCity]

Like I said, I can only vouch for metal detectors but I doubt that these scanners were brought in without some kind of testing maybe similar to the above to check that they can actually detect things and that with x amount of training your average TSA agent can read them well enough. (If not, then srsly, wtf?!)

Regardless of how effective any of the security measures are at detecting threats they are definitely a deterent to a certain extent. Sometimes a visual deterant is all that makes the difference between an attack and no attack. Terrorists will always keep coming up with new, more imaginative ways to get us but why shouldn't we make it difficult for them by placing as many obstacles as possible in their way? Soooo.....I don't wholly disagree with the "it doesn't matter how much security we have, they're gonna attack anyway" kind of statements but I would definitely caveat it with "but that doesn't mean we should just roll over and let them get on with it".

I don't think anyone was complaining about the metal detectors, although I guess people who have hip replacements, for example, have been having trouble with them for a long time.
It's more a question of having empathy for people who don't want the full body scan for health or privacy reasons, people who don't want to be groped (what they're doing is not a pat down as I would define it i.e. what the police do when they check someone for a weapon), people who have breast prostheses and medical appliances like pacemakers. Because it's not like you can just go through it once and then it's established that you have a special circumstance. You have to go through it every time you fly.

[missroxor]

That's extreme. They really shouldn't be checking in people's underwear unless they have a seriously good reason to suspect the person is concealing something there. Is that normal for every pat down or just a one off? It better not be part of the modified pat-down for kids.

[missroxor]

I don't think anyone was complaining about the metal detectors.
I...um...what? I don't know if I worded it wrong or if I'm just misunderstanding what you're getting at but my above point wasn't intended to support the use of metal detectors. I mean, I'm all for them but I didn't tell that story to promote their use specifically....It's just that my metal detector experience colours how I feel about the quantity and importance of having a variety of airport security in general. I was trying to make the point that while all the security in the world might not stop some really determined terrorists, it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother having them because for every one that gets through another plot is foiled, the fact that we don't hear about every find doesn't mean they're not working. They all play their role to some extent or another and overall, the fact that they (any security procedure) even exist is enough to put some potential terrorists off. That's gotta be a good thing, right?

Despite this I am conflicted on the issue because I do feel that the pat downs are in some cases goin too far and I'm angry that kids are being traumatised over it and treated in a way that in any other situation would probably be illegal.

[RoseCity]

So you wouldn't mind showing your breast protheses to a TSA screener in front of everyone because it's the 'rule'?

[missroxor]

So you wouldn't mind showing your breast protheses to a TSA screener in front of everyone because it's the 'rule'?
I do feel that the pat downs are in some cases goin too far.
Are we reading the same posts here? Or are you just looking for an arguement?

[RoseCity]

No, I think you're looking for an argument.

[missroxor]

.....mature

[Lavaster]

I feel it's a necessity because it's for SECURITY, not for some porn site!

[apv301]

The whole process is constitutionally illegal (in the US)

The Fourth Ammendent clearly states.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searching and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Feeling up a 4 year old girl to the point of making her cry is UNreasonable, and is, in my eye, sexual assault. Besides all of these new scans and methods don't mean jack squat when the bloody baggage for the plane is given a far less potent search.

[el_flel]

Normally I would advise people reading an article from the Daily Mail to take it with a bucket load of salt... but the traditional "pinch" may be all that is necessary here. An article about a man who refused to have the body scan AND the pat down, but was let through security anyway!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332276/Beating-TSA-How-determined-passenger-spent-hours-arguing-rights-waved-checks.html

[missroxor]

EDIT: Derp....I misread the article and only noticed when Mangaroo mentioned it that he didn't actually get on the plane after being set free, he'd just got off the plane :rolleyes:

[mangaroo]

Re: el_fiel's link: it's setting up an interesting dichotomy, since it is unlikely a visitor on a non-US passport would have been allowed through without a search. (Also, I don't believe this individual would be allowed on a plane without subjecting himself to a search. This appears to have been an international re-entry checkpoint...other than customs, the US didn't use to have those.)

Re: the point of the Wednesday, 11/24, protests: I don't believe the protestors are trying to send a message to their fellow travelers by causing them inconvenience. I believe they're trying to send a message to the TSA and the airports that these enhanced security measures are too intrusive too be tolerated. While the TSA doesn't care if you get to your plane on time, the airlines do, and their fees run the airport. If security can't be run efficiently, the businesses involved are inconvenienced, and business lobbies are (sadly) a heck of a lot more powerful than individuals when it comes to pushing through regulation changes.

[missroxor]

Re: the point of the Wednesday, 11/24, protests: I don't believe the protestors are trying to send a message to their fellow travelers by causing them inconvenience. I believe they're trying to send a message to the TSA and the airports that these enhanced security measures are too intrusive too be tolerated. While the TSA doesn't care if you get to your plane on time, the airlines do, and their fees run the airport. If security can't be run efficiently, the businesses involved are inconvenienced, and business lobbies are (sadly) a heck of a lot more powerful than individuals when it comes to pushing through regulation changes.
Good point, I hadn't considered the airlines stance on it and how much punching power they might have. There's gotta be a certain point though were they can't/won't interfere though. I mean, the airlines would be put out if their paying customers couldn't actually get on the plane and they might have to be re-embursed or if they had massive delays but how put out would they be if one of their planes full of paying customers was blown out the sky? I imagine they are just as concerned about security as the TSA are though, admittedly, they probably 'care' a lot more about the customers than the TSA do. I think the best we can hope for is a revised policy to perhaps make the experience less traumatising, I don't think they'll scrap the idea entirely....unless it's actually proven to be useless. They've already sunk too much money into it and I'm sure I heard on the news somewhere that 85% of US citizens actually agree with the additional security measures.


I still think its sucky to interfere with the holidays though. As I've said, I'm not even American and don't personally have any feelings about Thanksgiving but I've seen how important it is to a lot of Americans to be with their family at that time. I guess if it was me and I was facing spending Christmas Eve or Christmas day in a crappy airport security line instead of being with my husband and son I'd be annoyed.

[mangaroo]

I'm not convinced that the protest will cause significant security delays for travelers willing to go through the scanners. I don't think they pull TSA personnel off scanner duty to do the searches. Theoretically, people willing to be scanned should be able to go through even faster if a significant number of people are opting for the pat down. With all the advance notice of a protest, the TSA should arrange for different lines for scans and pat downs.

However, there could still be significant travel delays, since security happens after you have checked in with the airline and the airlines are unlikely to be happy about 25% of their check-ins missing at the gate. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

[missroxor]

Well, I hope the TSA have prepared for this so there's as little additional disruption as possible to non-protesters.

BTW, the number I got above was from a couple of days ago and I don't remember specifically where I heard it but I just had CNN on in the background just now and they say according to a poll done by the Washington Post and ABC news the numbers are as follows (if anyone's interested):
Opinion of full body scanners
Support - 64%
oppose - 32%
no opinion - 4%
opinion of enhanced pat down
justified - 48%
not justified - 50%
no opinion - 2%

To be honest, I find the numbers surprising. I mean, just going off the reaction some of my (not even extreme) comments have had on here, I expected a lot more people in the wider public to oppose them.

opinion poll link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_11222010.html)

[Purity4]

That's extreme. They really shouldn't be checking in people's underwear unless they have a seriously good reason to suspect the person is concealing something there. Is that normal for every pat down or just a one off? It better not be part of the modified pat-down for kids.

These enhanced pat downs fall under illegal search and seizure. There must first be probable cause, and there simply isn't.

[pinketamine]

Well, I hope the TSA have prepared for this so there's as little additional disruption as possible to non-protesters.

BTW, the number I got above was from a couple of days ago and I don't remember specifically where I heard it but I just had CNN on in the background just now and they say according to a poll done by the Washington Post and ABC news the numbers are as follows (if anyone's interested):
Opinion of full body scanners
Support - 64%
oppose - 32%
no opinion - 4%
opinion of enhanced pat down
justified - 48%
not justified - 50%
no opinion - 2%

To be honest, I find the numbers surprising. I mean, just going off the reaction some of my (not even extreme) comments have had on here, I expected a lot more people in the wider public to oppose them.

opinion poll link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_11222010.html)

Many people don't have a formed opinion about virtually anything, so if they are told that something is necessary because "the evil terrorists will kill and rape their kids" they just think it is true, without even questioning it.
For me, some governments are exaggerating and overreacting; making people fear for an enemy makes them worry less about these violations of their rights, because they feel that it is "necessary" and feel obligated to sacrifice their rights.
I'm worried about if this radiation is bad for people's health too.

[missroxor]

That's extreme. They really shouldn't be checking in people's underwear unless they have a seriously good reason to suspect the person is concealing something there.These enhanced pat downs fall under illegal search and seizure. There must first be probable cause, and there simply isn't.
Um....I don't know if I understand....the tone of your post suggests you're disagreeing with me but the bit you quoted from me says pretty much the same thing you just said. I don't agree with some of the more extreme aspects of the pat downs such as groping people's privates, touching inside their underwear and humiliating people with medical conditions like the bladder cancer survivor or the breast cancer survivor that've been on the news. Unless they have a genuinely good reason to suspect someone is a danger to the security of the flight/airport then they shouldn't be subjected to such extreme measures, K?

Also, there's a lot of complaining about it being done in full view of everyone. Why can't they just put up a screen for people to stand behind? It's not that hard!

[missroxor]

Many people don't have a formed opinion about virtually anything, so if they are told that something is necessary because "the evil terrorists will kill and rape their kids" they just think it is true, without even questioning it.
For me, some governments are exaggerating and overreacting; making people fear for an enemy makes them worry less about these violations of their rights, because they feel that it is "necessary" and feel obligated to sacrifice their rights.
I'm worried about if this radiation is bad for people's health too.
I agree. Some people don't take the time to think about current events or just don't care and if asked would probably say as much or just say whatever is the most popular thing to say/what they've heard other people say....maybe that's the case with the poll but if you believe that, it could go either way: maybe people agree because its what the goverment says is right and maybe people disagree because the people that protest it sound really angry and loud so they must be right.

Either way, you (I don't mean you specifically, just people in general) can't assume that people who have a different opinion to you must not have any real opinions at all and are in fact just somebody else's puppet.

[Purity4]

MissRoxor, you're over-thinking my post. I quoted you and continued from the points you made to make my own.

[missroxor]

MissRoxor, you're over-thinking my post. I quoted you and continued from the points you made to make my own.

lol, ok. I've had a lot of negative responses in this thread, guess I'm just on the defensive a bit :rolleyes: Sorry for any bad feeling caused.

[pinketamine]

I agree. Some people don't take the time to think about current events or just don't care and if asked would probably say as much or just say whatever is the most popular thing to say/what they've heard other people say....maybe that's the case with the poll but if you believe that, it could go either way: maybe people agree because its what the goverment says is right and maybe people disagree because the people that protest it sound really angry and loud so they must be right.

Either way, you (I don't mean you specifically, just people in general) can't assume that people who have a different opinion to you must not have any real opinions at all and are in fact just somebody else's puppet.

I don't assume it, I just think that these kind of polls tend not to give really valuable information.
If they discover that (for example) the scanners give cancer and they start talking in a bad way about them, the percentages will change a lot, because there is a lot of people that just does not know what to think.
And as you said, there could also be people that, influenced for what they hear from the people who oppose, can say "oh, I'll oppose to this."

[unalisaa]

For those who fall on the side of "intrusive, but necessary", you might be interested in seeing Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame comment on the efficiency of the full body scanners (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4).

[LE102071]

For those who fall on the side of "intrusive, but necessary", you might be interested in seeing Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame comment on the efficiency of the full body scanners (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4).


That truly makes this whole thing that much more ludicrous!

For those that stated they were unaware of what can actually be seen with the scanners, do a google search for TSA Backscatter Images Leaked, and turn off any safety filters you may be using.

I'm going to link two images, if they are too much for the site here, delete them, please... but that really only goes to show how inappropriate what can be seen is... AND.. they lied about the machines not saving, OR having the ability to print these images.

Male (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_C5VMt0Sqis0/TNyprH2Cu2I/AAAAAAAAFpE/038Ci9JKu9c/s1600/Backscatter%2Bman%2Bimage.jpg)

Female (http://notalemming.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/080110top2.jpg?w=550&h=437)

As has been stated previously in the thread here, and as was illustrated b-e-a-utifully by unalisaa's post.. these do not actually prevent contraband 100%. They are Unconstitutional (American's) ... And with the hand's in the underwear pat-downs.. anyone that agrees with these policies obviously has no concerns for personal privacy.

Add to that, the issue of rape/sexual assault victims, and OMG CHILDREN.. and this is just waaaaay out of line.

Please, for those of you that have posted that you are unconcerned and have made the statement of you aren't sure what they see, or 'from what you know they don't keep the images' ... do yourself, your family, and anyone else you are concerned with a favor.. and do some research.

Peace, out...

[missroxor]

The video doesn't exactly prove anything....Comedians aren't exactly known for only talking about things that have definitely happened to them. Plus, if it is true, it doesn't necessarily prove that the scanners are useless....I mean did you see the image of his body? Maybe the TSA agent who was checking him is just shit at his job or doesn't care or was hungover, I mean surely he would’ve gone through a metal detector first, why didn’t they pick them up?.......or maybe it is true, who knows?

I just can't help but be a tad suspicious of some of the things you hear about; rumours and lies about all sorts of stuff are spread on the internet as absolute gospel every day. Even the images could be doctored. I’m not saying they are, just that because somebody puts a picture online and gives it a title, doesn’t mean it’s real. I do suspect that there probably have been some leeks; in fact I think I even saw a story about it on the news and it’s just not acceptable, especially if they’re taking images of kids. That must be grounds for arrest. Out of curiosity, does anybody know if it’s actually illegal for them to leek pics of adults or is it just gonna get them fired? If it is, what’s the punishment?

Personally I don’t plan on flying until late next year by which time I’m hoping either the policy will have changed somewhat or there will be more definitive information about what is actually involved.

PS Also, I saw an interview on CNN recently where somebody was discussing the actual rules/guidelines of what a TSA agent can and can’t do and the guy said they are not allowed to put their hands in your underwear so the cases where its happened are against the rules. Case of bad training? Not that that'd be much comfort to those who had it done to them :rolleyes:

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to say, was glad to see that most people saw sense and decided not to opt out :beer:

[LE102071]

The video doesn't exactly prove anything....Comedians aren't exactly known for only talking about things that have definitely happened to them. Plus, if it is true, it doesn't necessarily prove that the scanners are useless....I mean did you see the image of his body? Maybe the TSA agent who was checking him is just shit at his job or doesn't care or was hungover, I mean surely he would’ve gone through a metal detector first, why didn’t they pick them up?.......or maybe it is true, who knows?

I just can't help but be a tad suspicious of some of the things you hear about; rumours and lies about all sorts of stuff are spread on the internet as absolute gospel every day. Even the images could be doctored. I’m not saying they are, just that because somebody puts a picture online and gives it a title, doesn’t mean it’s real. I do suspect that there probably have been some leeks; in fact I think I even saw a story about it on the news and it’s just not acceptable, especially if they’re taking images of kids. That must be grounds for arrest. Out of curiosity, does anybody know if it’s actually illegal for them to leek pics of adults or is it just gonna get them fired? If it is, what’s the punishment?

Personally I don’t plan on flying until late next year by which time I’m hoping either the policy will have changed somewhat or there will be more definitive information about what is actually involved.

PS Also, I saw an interview on CNN recently where somebody was discussing the actual rules/guidelines of what a TSA agent can and can’t do and the guy said they are not allowed to put their hands in your underwear so the cases where its happened are against the rules. Case of bad training? Not that that'd be much comfort to those who had it done to them :rolleyes:

missroxor, you seem to be one of the main posters that is either ambivalent or accepting of these "security" measures, but here is a blog from an actual TSO that performs the pat-down searches:
Flying With Fish (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/18/tsa-enhanced-pat-downs-the-screeners-point-of-view/)

In his blog, two excerpts read:

“It is not comfortable to come to work knowing full well that my hands will be feeling another man’s private parts, their butt, their inner thigh. Even worse is having to try and feel inside the flab rolls of obese passengers and we seem to get a lot of obese passengers!”

“Do you think I want to go to work and place my hands between women’s legs and touch their breasts for a few hours? For starters, I am attracted to men, not women and if I was attracted to women, it would not be the large number of passengers I handle daily that have a problem understanding what personal hygiene is.”


Coming from the TSO's that perform the "pat-downs" they clearly state they are physically touching genitalia.

Peace

[missroxor]

Coming from the TSO's that perform the "pat-downs" they clearly state they are physically touching genitalia.
Yeah, I know. I think I commented negatively on this aspect a while back. EDIT: They're not supposed to be in your pants *or underwear if you're American* though. From what I've seen on camera they are supposed to pat you on the outside of your clothes and when touching the nether regions are to use the backs of their hands. (Though maybe they just do that for personal preference, I've not seen it written down anywhere).

You're right, I am slightly conflicted on the issue. There are a lot of details that I'm uncomfortable with/downright angry about but I do believe that some kind of security other than what we had previously is needed (though I think if these procedures are to stay then some policy change is required). I completely disagree with those who say they shouldn't have to go through any additional security because they are innocent until proven guilty.....when I'm traveling with family or friends I don't want to find proof that a fellow passenger is guilty when I'm 10,000ft in the air. I think most of my comments on this thread have been ranting about the protests though :P

[LE102071]

Yeah, I know. I think I commented negatively on this aspect a while back. EDIT: They're not supposed to be in your pants *or underwear if you're American* though. From what I've seen on camera they are supposed to pat you on the outside of your clothes and when touching the nether regions are to use the backs of their hands. (Though maybe they just do that for personal preference, I've not seen it written down anywhere).

You're right, I am slightly conflicted on the issue. There are a lot of details that I'm uncomfortable with/downright angry about but I do believe that some kind of security other than what we had previously is needed (though I think if these procedures are to stay then some policy change is required). I completely disagree with those who say they shouldn't have to go through any additional security because they are innocent until proven guilty.....when I'm traveling with family or friends I don't want to find proof that a fellow passenger is guilty when I'm 10,000ft in the air. I think most of my comments on this thread have been ranting about the protests though :P

I think the main point of the protesters and those posting here in support of the protesters disagreement of the new policies feel that the "old way" may not have been adequate, but the "new way" is too far, and a new-new way needs to be investigated and implemented where passenger safety can be more readily offered (tho it is completely impossible for any safety measure to be 100%.)

On the blog link I posted, reading through the whole of the article, and the following comments are very.. um... enlightening.

No attack or offense was intended to you, btw... with the post I made earlier.

Peace

[missroxor]

I think the main point of the protesters and those posting here in support of the protesters disagreement of the new policies feel that the "old way" may not have been adequate, but the "new way" is too far, and a new-new way needs to be investigated and implemented where passenger safety can be more readily offered (tho it is completely impossible for any safety measure to be 100%.)

I think I have a good understanding of the popular opinion on this thread, it's been made clear to me over and over :p and actually, I think a lot (not all) of the people who argued against these security measures were of the opinion that there's not a lot of point in introducing further security checks because passenger safety cannot be "more readily offered" than it already is because if a terrorist is determined enough he's gonna get though anyway so we might as well not go through the extra hassle. As I said above, I disagree. Yes they are determined and yes, its possible another will get through but should we just give up and let them get on with it? EDIT: I have alreaady said a number of times that I think a better method should be implemented if and when one is thought of.

For the most part though when we were debating the protestors (I at least) was mainly debating whether or not they were right to be putting out fellow passengers on the busiest day of the year on a holiday, not so much the reasons behind the protest (although they were mentioned).

We're starting to cover old ground here :wtf:

[Purity4]

I do suspect that there probably have been some leeks;

In your soup!

(okay, that time I'm picking on you, but not in a mean, angry sort of way, just in a funny, couldn't pass up the easy opportunity kind of way.)

[missroxor]

lol, well, my husband is Welsh...guess I have leeks on the brain! :lol:

leeks = leaks ;)

[pinketamine]

From what you are saying, I understand that you defend that war should be done only in the "attacking" country, and should not affect US citizens...? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, it should be analyzed if 90% of the wars US is involved in have any REAL sense, asides from the economic interests. Many Americans tend to see themselves as victims, and I don't agree with that.

[RoseCity]

I found this letter that some scientists and a doctor from UC San Francisco wrote to the Obama administration about their concerns with the full body scanners.

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

[fakepeeps7]

I found this letter that some scientists and a doctor from UC San Francisco wrote to the Obama administration about their concerns with the full body scanners.

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

In other words, basically, "We don't know exactly what effects these machines will have because we haven't really tested them."

Let's hope we don't end up with more cases akin to those of Clarence Madison Dally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Madison_Dally). Have we still not figured out that indiscriminate use of x-rays can be dangerous?

[RoseCity]

In other words, basically, "We don't know exactly what effects these machines will have because we haven't really tested them."

Let's hope we don't end up with more cases akin to those of Clarence Madison Dally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Madison_Dally). Have we still not figured out that indiscriminate use of x-rays can be dangerous?

I think it was last year, there were a lot of articles about people getting overdoses of radiation from improperly calibrated CT scan machines, so it doesn't seem far fetched that the same thing could happen with the full body scanners.
So now I'm leaning toward, if I did have to fly, getting the grope because at least you won't get overcooked doing that. Although after reading the TSA worker's blog that LE102071 posted above, it seems like the TSA employees are the ones being horribly traumatized - maybe if they stage a protest, things will change.

[christmas fear]

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/airport-body-scanners-under-pressure-experts-now-warn-x-ray-devices-could-give-you-cancer/

has anybody brought up a point about how these scanners could be potentially harmful? in my opinion, that is reason enough not to subject yourself to it. but i also realize that it isn't the first thing some people think about, because there was a huge uproar about privacy and how it's a violation of your body and your rights. i keep an open mind to all of these opinions. their reason for doing it are security, which isn't bad. but i do agree that these are extreme measures to take and even though a lot of people are complaining, i wouldn't expect anything less. i do hope that some people can get together and protest/make a change.

[Purity4]

I'll share this which was written by a poster on another forum on the subject of radiation:
Approximate radiation from....

A mammogram = .4 mSv
A chest x-ray = .1 mSv
A CT scan (chest, abdomen, pelvis) = 18 mSv
Natural radiation from the Earth (per year) = 3 mSv
Flight from New York to Paris = .035 mSv
Airport scanners: 0.00003 mSv

If you're honestly that concerned about radiation from the airport scanners, you probably should elect not to fly anyway. Or carry a cell phone. Or own a computer. Just sayin'.

[Luxwing_go]

I'd rather get scanned than have an extensive pat-down. A scanned image only appears for a second (their minds scarred, not mine), but a pat-down shall be felt for years.

Then again, driving is fun too.
Better yet, take the bus.
Or walk.

If people still are not happy, we shall recreate the great age of the trains! Choo-choo!

[LE102071]

Approximate radiation from....

A mammogram = .4 mSv
A chest x-ray = .1 mSv
A CT scan (chest, abdomen, pelvis) = 18 mSv
Natural radiation from the Earth (per year) = 3 mSv
Flight from New York to Paris = .035 mSv
Airport scanners: 0.00003 mSv

If you're honestly that concerned about radiation from the airport scanners, you probably should elect not to fly anyway. Or carry a cell phone. Or own a computer. Just sayin'.
I'll share this which was written by a poster on another forum on the subject of radiation:

First, and foremost.. who was the author of the post? No offense to anyone here, but I would take anything stated on these forums with a grain of salt (as everyone here should take mine, btw.) Are you taking some random nobody at their word, on the internet, in a forum? Were they a professional with expertise in the area? Were they a medical doctor with experience to radiation studies?

Take this account from CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/travel/body.scanning.radiation_1_backscatter-radiological-research-radiation?_s=PM:TRAVEL):


They're arriving at airports across the country. Some complain they are invasive and an assault on our privacy. But are body scanners at security checkpoints dangerous?

Some scientists and two major airline pilots unions contend not enough is known about the effects of the small doses of X-ray radiation emitted by one of the two types of airport scanning machines.

The Transportation Security Administration's advanced imaging technology machines use two separate means of creating images of passengers -- backscatter X-ray technology and millimeter-wave technology.

At the end of October, 189 backscatter units and 152 millimeter-wave machines were in use in more than 65 airports. The total number of imaging machines is expected to near 1,000 by the end of 2011, according to the TSA.

While the TSA says the machines are safe, backscatter technology raises concerns among some because it uses small doses of ionizing radiation. The use of millimeter-wave technology hasn't received the same attention, and radiation experts say it poses no known health risks.

The risk of harmful radiation exposure from backscatter scans is very small, according to David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University and a professor of radiation biophysics.

But he said he is concerned about how widely the scanners will be used.

"If you think of the entire population of, shall we say a billion people per year going through these scanners, it's very likely that some number of those will develop cancer from the radiation from these scanners," Brenner said.

Skin cancer would likely be the primary concern, he said. Each time the same person receives a backscatter scan, the small risk associated with the low dose of radiation is multiplied by the number of exposures.

Brenner said the risk to an individual is "very small indeed" for a single scan. He said he is most concerned about frequent fliers, pilots and young people, because children are more sensitive to radiation.

Backscatter technology is safe, the TSA says, and enables the detection of nonmetallic threats, including weapons and explosives. It has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, according to the agency.


All emphasis in the quote are mine. For people that already suffer skin cancer, this is a concern for them. Elderly and Children (which ARE scanned) are more susceptible to radiation damage. And, of course, those who fly frequently, mainly due to their work.

No, it may not be that dangerous in a single "dose," but over time, with repeated exposure, there is going to be health issues to deal with. The main problem that a lot of people have concerning the radiation aspect, aside from the personal privacy issue, is that these machines have not been thoroughly tested. Which brings up very bad memories of Thalidomide children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide) and if you watch any amount of television (in the US mainly) all of the lawyer adverts for "if you've taken this medication, and are suffering these symptoms you may have a case against such-and-such pharmaceutical company..." the fact that those drugs were not properly tested for LONG TERM use/exposure.

Even IF there is nothing dangerous that happens to the individual being scanned, what happens to the children of the 8 year old boy, or 16 year old girl when they become parents.. and is this a risk that you want to take for the purpose of Security Theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater), which is exactly what all of this backscatter scanning is. It has also been stated by TSA personnel, that the reasoning behind the more aggressive, more invasive pat-downs is to basically coerce the public into using the backscatter machines.

Peace

[missroxor]

........ We are at war with an enemy who is in places like Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. That means you go there and you kill, as in kill, anybody who wants to kill you until nobody else wants to fight.

.... you go where the enemy is and do whatever it takes for however long it takes until it's over. Anything else is just making war on our own democracy and liberty. Anything else just makes us more deluded and no safer.

I find it hard to believe that you genuinely believe this which leads me to think I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Yes, we have troops over in other countries fighting the war but that's just not enough these days. Mr. Rickenbacker lived in a completely different time where his quote was probably very relevant but today we don't have the luxury of just sending the troops out to do the dirty work while we sit all safe and cosy at home. Terrorists have denied/are trying to deny us the right to feel safe on our home ground. See below a list of terrorist attacks that have happened in the UK and US in the last 3 years if you still think we don't need to worry ourselves with this stuff.

I'm not saying we all need to run around hysterical that we're all gonna die or think that everyone is trying to kill us; that is rubbish, just that we can't assume that because we're not soldiers on the front line we don't need to think about protecting ourselves from our enemies. Besides, many of these terrorist attacks are carried out by citizens of the UK/US that have never even been to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen. Not all terrorists are Muslims or Taliban or from crappy countries, the only common factor among terrorists that I can think of is that they all want to kill whoever happens to be their enemy....which in a lot of cases is us :|


Printer Cartidge bombs
Car/van/bin bombs in NI
Shootings in NI
Various attempted bombings in New York
US soldiers shot in Arkansas
Christmas Day bomber
Pipe bomb in Fed-Ex, San Diego
Exeter attempted bombing (UK)

There's probably more, these are just some I can think of/find info on.


EDIT: I know the conversation's moved on, I'm trying to playcatch-up :p

[LE102071]

Not all terrorists are Muslims or Taliban or from crappy countries, the only common factor among terrorists that I can think of is that they all want to kill whoever happens to be their enemy....which in a lot of cases is us :|


Definitely not... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh)

Peace

[fakepeeps7]

Timothy McVeigh never tried to smuggle his bomb onto a plane, though. Size-wise, it wouldn't be possible. But if you're talking about any kind of fertilizer bomb, I don't think these new scanners are going to do much good, either.

Dogs would pick up on the scent, of course. But they're apparently too expensive to use (even though they'll work for food). :)

[missroxor]

Timothy McVeigh never tried to smuggle his bomb onto a plane, though. Size-wise, it wouldn't be possible. But if you're talking about any kind of fertilizer bomb, I don't think these new scanners are going to do much good, either.
For those couple of posts we'd taken a bit of a detour and were talking about the presence of terrorist and acts of terrorism in and against the US/UK, not specifically relating to planes or airports. :)

Can I ask why you say that about fertilizer bombs? I'm not challenging you, I just don't know a lot about the composition of bombs. I've read that scanners detect mass, not specific materials like metal detectors do. Some materials show up better than others because of their different properties but and apparently they show organic materials better than non-organic. Is there any reason that type of bomb wouldn't show up?

[LE102071]

Timothy McVeigh never tried to smuggle his bomb onto a plane, though. Size-wise, it wouldn't be possible. But if you're talking about any kind of fertilizer bomb, I don't think these new scanners are going to do much good, either.

Dogs would pick up on the scent, of course. But they're apparently too expensive to use (even though they'll work for food). :)

Yeah, my quote was to the specifics of terrorists are not only those foreign.. but domestic as well.

Peace

[Sunbee]

Everyone's concerned about terrorist attacks on airplanes, which are uncommon occurrences. Anybody comparing to other causes of death? http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx More than 30,000 in the USA from auto accidents last year. Should we ban cars?

Yes, there are terrorists. Reasonable precautions are reasonable. Where would you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable? If the TSA decides they need to check body cavities on everyone who's getting on a plane, is that reasonable?

[fakepeeps7]

Can I ask why you say that about fertilizer bombs? I'm not challenging you, I just don't know a lot about the composition of bombs. I've read that scanners detect mass, not specific materials like metal detectors do. Some materials show up better than others because of their different properties but and apparently they show organic materials better than non-organic. Is there any reason that type of bomb wouldn't show up?

I think the point I was trying to make was that, when you're dealing with explosives that can be hidden and disguised in pieces of clothing (as in the cases of the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber), I doubt the scanners are going to pick up anything useful without picking up a ton of other irrelevant information that's going to be used against people. Are they going to start pulling menstruating women aside because the scanner picks up "organic material" in their underwear? What about elderly people who are wearing Depends? Scanners could potentially show all kinds of stuff that ends up being innocuous from a security standpoint... but humiliating for the passengers involved.

That's why I'd prefer dogs over scanners. They can tell the difference between a terrorist with a bomb in their pants and an elderly person with... something else in their pants.

[missroxor]

Everyone's concerned about terrorist attacks on airplanes, which are uncommon occurrences. Anybody comparing to other causes of death? http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx More than 30,000 in the USA from auto accidents last year. Should we ban cars?
On this thread specifically? Everyone is bangin on about terrorist attacks on airplanes because that's what the thread is about more or less. In the wider world it is still a hot topic (IMO) because if and when an aircraft is attacked you can expect at minimum the 150 or so passengers on the plane (I think that's roughly how many fit on a normal, average sized passenger plane) to be at risk of death or injury and at worst........how many people lost their lives on 9/11? Attacks on aircrafts may not happen as often as car crashes but they have a devastating impact on a lot more people at once. Also, attacks on aircraft are pre-meditated acts of hate, car crashes are usually due to one or more of the people involved being stupid, irresponsible and/or a selfish dick.....sometimes environmental conitions are a factor too. There's only so much that can be done to protect people from themselves. I could write a novel about how I feel about this subject but that's for another thread ;)

I think the point I was trying to make was that, when you're dealing with explosives that can be hidden and disguised in pieces of clothing (as in the cases of the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber), I doubt the scanners are going to pick up anything useful without picking up a ton of other irrelevant information that's going to be used against people. Are they going to start pulling menstruating women aside because the scanner picks up "organic material" in their underwear? What about elderly people who are wearing Depends? Scanners could potentially show all kinds of stuff that ends up being innocuous from a security standpoint... but humiliating for the passengers involved.

That's why I'd prefer dogs over scanners. They can tell the difference between a terrorist with a bomb in their pants and an elderly person with... something else in their pants.
I guess at the end of the day it'll come down to training. The scanners themselves don't identify objects, they only take the image, the TSA agent is the one who identifies any objects that may or may not be there....at least that's my understanding of how it works. I've not heard anything on the matter but I can only assume that they (pads/tampons) either don't show up or TSA agents have received training that enables them to tell the difference between a sanitary towel and a bomb. I mean, everyone is out to tell a story that shows the TSA in a bad light so if there'd been an incident of this nature I'm sure we would've seen an angry rant about it on the news by now......unless it just so happens that there's been no incontinent OAPs or menstrual women scanned yet ;) (I'll eat my words when we do start hearing these kind of stories :lol:)

Dogs do sound like a good idea but somebody else already said they've been deemed too expensive.....plus, you'll never make evryone happy, what about people with severe animal fur allergies or those who have a paralysing fear of dogs (I knew someone like that once, wasn't fun to be near her when dogs were around).

[wickedblue]

First story on the page... menstruating woman (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/11/your-morning-tsa-security-round-up_25.html)

[missroxor]

I guess at the end of the day it'll come down to training. The scanners themselves don't identify objects, they only take the image, the TSA agent is the one who identifies any objects that may or may not be there....at least that's my understanding of how it works. .....I'll eat my words when we do start hearing these kind of stories :lol:

I'm gonna semi eat my words, lol. Sounds like a very unpleasant experience, especially since it brought back bad memories for her and I would not want to go through that myself. Could it have been prevented by better training though as I suggested above and this poster (who replied in your link): I think the so-called problem came because the woman in question was using a cloth (washable, reusable) pad. These pads generally are fastened by wings that snap together, and the snaps are often metal, sometimes plastic. I suspect that the scan picked up the snaps.

But the people checking the scans ought to be able to recognize snaps, as a common part of clothing, just as they should be able to recognize buttons, hooks-and-eyes, etc

My guess is that disposable products are less likely to show up, as they don't have metal snaps, and if they do show up, the TSA screeners will be more likely to recognize them as common. But who wants to sit on a disposable pad for an entire flight?
I must admit, despite being a menstruating woman I had no idea people still used cloth pads....or at least that they're still apparently common and I have no idea what a cup or sea sponge might look like. I'm not defending their actions in this case just wondering, like the poster above, if the TSA agent viewing those scans didn't recognise what she was wearing as a normal thing. Maybe they need to be educated in the variety of things that they might see in people's private areas. On a side note, if she felt uncomfortable having a trainee there why didn't she say she didn't want to be part of staff training?

Another thing I found quite saddening on that post was the comment from the pre-op woman who was loudly humiliated and called Sir repeatedly despite having an outward feminine appearance and name. Although I am in the 'more security measures are required' camp I do think that this whole situation is very sensitive and needs to be handled accordingly. If they can't employ staff that can handle the situation quickly and efficiently with as little distress and awkwardness to the passengers as possible what the f*ck is the point? If they want this to happen without alienating every last customer they have they need to stop employing any old scrote off the street and instead at least attempt to employ people with an ounce of maturity and professionalism who are properly trained in imagery analysis and what components of professional and home made weapons look like (and a heap of sensitivity training). No doubt that costs too much money :rolleyes:

I still think introducing more security is a good idea and I'm still on the fence about whether or not these particular measures will satisfy but mostly that's because I think the whole thing has been handled atrociously. If staff were properly trained (and professional), rules about what can and can't be done/seen and an idea of their capabilities were written clearly in black and white for all to see then this might've been a lot smoother and more successful than it's been up untill now (and I would say policy change again but tbh I'm still not 100% sure what the policy actually is).

[InsanePotatoes]

Missroxor is right. The TSA worker is the one who has to take the image of your nekkid body and determine what's there. It's their skill to differentiate between things.
Unfortunately, apparently most of the TSA workers aren't that skilled and some of them aren't really that bright either. I'm not saying they're stupid, but many of them lack the critical thinking skills to...
(goes reading about this subject)
Well... after reading some more stuff about the TSA policies, the scanners and the groping/sexual molestation... it really begs the question.
Does our government hate us?
Because that's the impression that I get.

Also, this is an interesting read. http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

[pinketamine]

I find it hard to believe that you genuinely believe this which leads me to think I must be misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Yes, we have troops over in other countries fighting the war but that's just not enough these days. Mr. Rickenbacker lived in a completely different time where his quote was probably very relevant but today we don't have the luxury of just sending the troops out to do the dirty work while we sit all safe and cosy at home. Terrorists have denied/are trying to deny us the right to feel safe on our home ground. See below a list of terrorist attacks that have happened in the UK and US in the last 3 years if you still think we don't need to worry ourselves with this stuff.

Excuse me but... WHAT? Yes, having troops all around the world is enough, in fact, it is more than enough. Maybe the best way to stop terrorists is the US stop invading EVERY single country they want?
Terrorists have denied you the right to be safe at you home, but US troops deny this right to many people in the world, and nobody seems to worry about it.


I'm not saying we all need to run around hysterical that we're all gonna die or think that everyone is trying to kill us; that is rubbish, just that we can't assume that because we're not soldiers on the front line we don't need to think about protecting ourselves from our enemies. Besides, many of these terrorist attacks are carried out by citizens of the UK/US that have never even been to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen. Not all terrorists are Muslims or Taliban or from crappy countries, the only common factor among terrorists that I can think of is that they all want to kill whoever happens to be their enemy....which in a lot of cases is us :|

What is a crappy country?
Don't you find it curious that the hate is directed to US and UK, which happen to be the most war-inclined countries in the world?

I personally think that the US government is overreacting, and adopting measures that make their citizens lose their right to have a privacy and probably risking their health. But, of course, who cares about that when there are "millions of arabs trying to kill us".

[missroxor]

Excuse me but... WHAT? Yes, having troops all around the world is enough, in fact, it is more than enough. Maybe the best way to stop terrorists is the US stop invading EVERY single country they want?

Terrorists have denied you the right to be safe at you home, but US troops deny this right to many people in the world, and nobody seems to worry about it.?If we all just play nice nobody will get hurt? It must be nice to live in a world where that applies. I'm not defending the war or whatever stupid decisions were made that got us into it but I don't think pulling all the troops out instantly is gonna fix the situation....I'm not even sure its a situation that can be fixed. There are those that hate all westerners (that includes Spain btw) for everything from our loose morals to our constant blasphemy (in their eyes), we are hated for our very culture. The fact that we (Spanish troops too) are tramping our big siz 9s all over their countries really doesn't help matters but I don't think pulling out in an instant will stop them hating us and it won't stop them attempting to kill innocent people indiscriminantly.

As for us making them feel unsafe, I'm sure someone will find a link to prove me wrong but I don't recall any UK/US troops going on a mass murder/suicide bombing spree indiscriminantly killing as many people as possible. The difference between us and them is that we have rules of engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement) which determine who, why, where, when and how we may or may not attack..... terrorists have one rule of engagement: kill as many people as possible indiscriminantly. Oh, and it's a little dramatic of you to make out like you're the only one who worries about victims of war, why don't you start an anti-war thread and see how many responses you get? What is a crappy country?
Don't you find it curious that the hate is directed to US and UK, which happen to be the most war-inclined countries in the world?You're right, I shouldn't have generalised a bunch of countries as "crappy", that was in poor taste. What I was referring to there was the sort of countries which often look like pretty holiday destinations until you notice all the kids who've been maimed by the land mines that are left all over the place, where lowly farmers are forced to choose between doing the dirty work of gang leaders or letting their families starve to death, where people are recruited into a life of violence and hatred or convinced to commit mass murder and suicide in the name of their cause, where a child can be raped and then stoned to death because what 'she did' was adultery, where life is so intolerable for some women they are driven to suicide except they're poorly educated so the only way they can think of/know of is to set themselves on fire and hope they die quickly. I'm sure the countries where these sorts of things happen have nice qualities too but I wouldn't be able to go to many of them to find out without some kind of protection because I'm a woman.


I'll assume the last bit of your post wasn't directed at me.

[pinketamine]

My response was to you, but I didn't mean to be rude to you. What I mean is that the US/UK governments make stupid decisions which affect their own citizens' security. Don't let them lie to you; the Afghanistan invasion was planned before the 11-S, there are documents that prove it. They later wanted to destroy Hussein's dictatorship, but they were the ones putting him there to start with.
When they discover the problem that THEY have created, what they do is increasing the measures and developing security policies that make their own citizens lose their rights. Gaining rights is something really difficult to do, but you can lose them in a few minutes, and that is something that you, as a citizen, should not allow.

I'm not justifying hate or terrorism, as I despite violence, but you have to admit that this hate is understandable. It is normal that the population of many countries does not like the US, they feel invaded by them, attacked. And the terrorists use this hate/fear/dislike and transform worried people, who don't have anything to lose, in terrorists.
Spain is in Afghanistan too, because of the NATO and was in Iraq to... because the previous president decided to do it even when most of the Spanish population didn't want us to enter in that war, and we have suffered that hate in return too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings).
Maybe sending the troops home will not solve the things, but those troops should not have been sent to start with.
They created the problem, and you should ask them to solve these problems without affecting your rights.

I agree with you that these countries have many problems, regarding democracy, human rights, etc. But the US government does not really care that much if the country is their allied; you can see Saudi Arabia information (http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_EN.pdf) (pages 299 and after) about Human Rights, and US and Saudi Arabia have cordial relationships.
Don't believe everything the governments tell you, because most of the time they are just trying to convince their citizens that war is necessary, but there aren't as many necessary wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States). Don't lose your rights so easily, because getting them was something really difficult for many generations of people who had to fight for them.

[RoseCity]

... it won't stop them attempting to kill innocent people indiscriminantly.

As for us making them feel unsafe, I'm sure someone will find a link to prove me wrong but I don't recall any UK/US troops going on a mass murder/suicide bombing spree indiscriminantly killing as many people as possible. The difference between us and them is that we have rules of engagement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement) which determine who, why, where, when and how we may or may not attack..... terrorists have one rule of engagement: kill as many people as possible indiscriminantly. Oh, and it's a little dramatic of you to make out like you're the only one who worries about victims of war, why don't you start an anti-war thread and see how many responses you get?

90,000+ Iraqi civilians are dead because of this war, yet not one Iraqi, for example, was among the hijackers on 9/11. By the rules of engagement, you may be able to kill people following certain rules, but it doesn't explain why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

[Sunbee]

Is for us making them feel unsafe, I'm sure someone will find a link to prove me wrong but I don't recall any UK/US troops going on a mass murder/suicide bombing spree indiscriminantly killing as many people as possible.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
It's only been a year. I suppose since he targeted his fellow military personnel one could say that he wasn't indiscriminate. Or you could do like many of my far-right relatives do and say it was because he's Muslim and therefore not a 'real American', which I think is BS, but that's another story.

[missroxor]

90,000+ Iraqi civilians are dead because of this war, yet not one Iraqi, for example, was among the hijackers on 9/11. By the rules of engagement, you may be able to kill people following certain rules, but it doesn't explain why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

RoseCity, will you start actually reading my posts before you go off half-cocked and reply to them in such an accusing tone? The rules of engagement aren't supposed to "explain why we invaded Iraq in the first place". Nor was any part of my post. ROE is just a set of rules that soldiers must follow when they're in combat situations. I mentioned them to support my point that while both sides are in the business of killing, terrorists don't give a crap who they kill: military, civilians, women, children, elderly etc whereas troops (I don't think US and UK ROE are exactly the same but I don't know what the differences. Americans are known for being more gun-ho than us Brits though) actually have to think about each and every kill and decide whether or not each attack would benefit more people than it would harm to not attack. Of course it would be much better if there were no wars ever and nobody had to die but unfortunately we don't live in a fairytale. People full of hate and anger (on both sides) have no desire for world peace.

Let's not turn this into something it's not, we're supposed to be discussing current and future terrorism and what lengths we should or shouldn't be going to to protect against it, not military/world history.

I personally think that the US government is overreacting, and adopting measures that make their citizens lose their right to have a privacy and probably risking their health. But, of course, who cares about that when there are "millions of arabs trying to kill us".I'm not saying we all need to run around hysterical that we're all gonna die or think that everyone is trying to kill us...Besides, many of these terrorist attacks are carried out by citizens of the UK/US that have never even been to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen. Not all terrorists are Muslims or Taliban or from crappy countries...
Pinketamine, I assumed this last bit (quoted below) wasn't directed at me because it sounds as though you're saying that anyone who supports security measures are only doing so because they hate Arab nations and assume that they're all out to kill us....which is the exact opposite of what I said in the statement that you quoted.


When they discover the problem that THEY have created, what they do is increasing the measures and developing security policies that make their own citizens lose their rightsPeople seem to have it in their heads that terrorism was invented in 2001 when its actually been around for ages. You should know that, afterall Madrid and Spain in general have had their fair share of terrorist attacks from non-Muslim groups like ETA as has Britain from groups like the IRA.

No doubt the war agrevated the situation with (mainly) Muslim groups and many see it as giving terrorists justification for their hatred and violence but If you take the war out of the equation and pretend it never hapenned we'd still be getting attacked for reasons I stated in my above post among others. We'd still be fighting terrorism and we'd still need security to try to protect ourselves which brings us back to the original topic. Even without Al Qu'aida and similar groups we'd still be under attack and would still need some security measures in place.


I agree with you that these countries have many problems, regarding democracy, human rights, etc. But the US government does not really care that much if the country is their allied; you can see Saudi Arabia information (pages 299 and after) about Human Rights, and US and Saudi Arabia have cordial relationships.
Don't believe everything the governments tell you
You could do with taking your own advice here. I really don't think things are so black and white, I don't think the US and Saudi are best buds but what would it take to prove that? War? Aren't we supposed to be on the less war, more peace side of things?

[missroxor]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
It's only been a year. I suppose since he targeted his fellow military personnel one could say that he wasn't indiscriminate. Or you could do like many of my far-right relatives do and say it was because he's Muslim and therefore not a 'real American', which I think is BS, but that's another story.

I realise that there are some people on this thread who have mis-read or misunderstood my meaning and made ludicrous accusations/presumptions about my beliefs but at what point have I (ie, not words that were put in my mouth by some other poster) expressed extreme right wing/racist views? I am not racists, apart from saying some countries are crappy (which I admitted was in poor taste though I didn't mean it in a racist way) I don't recall making any comments that could be taken for racism. Nor have I said that war is good and we all need to go kill everyone and I don't know how many times I have to repeat the fact that I do not think we all just need to shut up and get on with letting people grope us and humiliate us.....I explained my stance on this several times in previous threads.

I don't know a lot about the Fort Hood incident but to my knowledge he was a US soldier who turned on his own people. As tragic as it was, that's not exactly the same thing as performing a terrorist attack on/killing your enemies which is what I was talking about....unless he was doing it on their behalf?

[fakepeeps7]

You're taking things way too personally, missroxor. Sunbee seems to have been using "you" in a more general sense. I don't think that comment was directed at you or that it was meant to imply that you are a racist.

No doubt the war agrevated the situation with (mainly) Muslim groups and many see it as giving terrorists justification for their hatred and violence but If you take the war out of the equation and pretend it never hapenned we'd still be getting attacked for reasons I stated in my above post among others. We'd still be fighting terrorism and we'd still need security to try to protect ourselves which brings us back to the original topic. Even without Al Qu'aida and similar groups we'd still be under attack and would still need some security measures in place.

I agree with pinketamine here, though:

Excuse me but... WHAT? Yes, having troops all around the world is enough, in fact, it is more than enough. Maybe the best way to stop terrorists is the US stop invading EVERY single country they want?
Terrorists have denied you the right to be safe at you home, but US troops deny this right to many people in the world, and nobody seems to worry about it.

The countries who are getting attacked need to take a good long look at their foreign policies. Of course there will always be a few home-grown terrorists who have their own beef with the government for whatever reason. But that sort of thing doesn't usually result in the hysteria and subsequent trampling of personal freedoms that we're seeing now. Did the general public see major changes in security after Oklahoma City? How about Columbine or Virginia Tech? Or Fort Hood? Not really. The mentally ill are still allowed to run around with guns within the borders of the U.S.A. And yet everybody's concentrating on things that we have even less control over. And it's all for what? To give the illusion of safety?

Terrorism has been around for a long time because certain governments have been dicks for a long time. Stop being a dick and making enemies, and it will be harder for terrorists to recruit for their cause... because the cause won't look much like a cause anymore.

Living in a police state just means the terrorists have accomplished what they set out to do: terrorize the population and bring attention to their cause.

[missroxor]

You're taking things way too personally, missroxor. Sunbee seems to have been using "you" in a more general sense. I don't think that comment was directed at you or that it was meant to imply that you are a racist.
Maybe so but I read it as personal. More than once on this thread I've had to correct somebody who did try to put words in my mouth, it's bloody frustrating, but If I've misunderstood you and gone off in a rant for no reason then I'm sorry Sunbee, I guess I was speaking in anger. :rolleyes:
The mentally ill are still allowed to run around with guns within the borders of the U.S.A. And yet everybody's concentrating on things that we have even less control over. And it's all for what? To give the illusion of safety?
The first part is something I wholeheartedly agree with, things will probably never change but I really disagree with guns being perfectly legal.....but again, that's a different arguement. The latter, well....as I've said before, I do think security is needed and it'll never be 100% effective but I think on the whole, most security procudures contribute slightly more than just lulling people into a false sense of security.
Terrorism has been around for a long time because certain governments have been dicks for a long time. Stop being a dick and making enemies, and it will be harder for terrorists to recruit for their cause... because the cause won't look much like a cause anymore.
Agree about some governments being dicks some of the time but that's not always the case and sometimes terrorists are unreasonable dicks too.....actually this kind of reminds me of the speech on team america: We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit! :lol:
Living in a police state just means the terrorists have accomplished what they set out to do: terrorize the population and bring attention to their cause.
Yes but giving up and letting the terrorists kill whoever they want because we want to be free is, well,....is that the kind of freedom you dream of? Fighting violence with violence is probably not the answer but neither is submission. Submission also means that they have won because they've scared us into doing things their way. As Winston Churchill once said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life". Not everything goverments fight for is worthwile or just but I sure as hell bet that not everything terrorists fight for is either.

[fakepeeps7]

Yes but giving up and letting the terrorists kill whoever they want because we want to be free is, well,....is that the kind of freedom you dream of? Fighting violence with violence is probably not the answer but neither is submission.

I'm not proposing submission. But it seems like you're actually defending a police state. Is having someone assume you're a terrorist and grope you your idea of freedom?

There's a happy medium somewhere. People are just too lazy (or too cheap) to look for it. Alternatives have already been suggested in this thread, so I won't bother rehashing them here.

Submission also means that they have won because they've scared us into doing things their way.

And what is "their way", exactly? Are you saying that if we give up on terrorism, we'll all adopt a jihadist mindset, become terrorists, and blow up innocent people? (Makes sense... :blink:) Or is this some sort of veiled Islamophobic statement about how Muslims are going to take over the world and make us all wear burqas?

I really don't understand what you mean by this statement.

As Winston Churchill once said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life".

I wonder if Kim Jong-Il has that as a cross-stitch sampler on his wall...

Just because you've made some enemies does not automatically mean you've done something right. Hitler had enemies. So did Stalin. If you stand up for the wrong things, you can make enemies just as well as if you stand up for the right ones.

Not everything goverments fight for is worthwile or just but I sure as hell bet that not everything terrorists fight for is either.

That statement is certainly true. But I'm not sure what your point is.

[pinketamine]

I'm having a bit of a difficult time for wording this, but I'll try to find the words.

Pinketamine, I assumed this last bit (quoted below) wasn't directed at me because it sounds as though you're saying that anyone who supports security measures are only doing so because they hate Arab nations and assume that they're all out to kill us....which is the exact opposite of what I said in the statement that you quoted.
No, that was not what I was meaning to say. I said "the arabs" because they are the main concern when it comes to US and international terrorism, but I meant it as a general international terrorist threat.

People seem to have it in their heads that terrorism was invented in 2001 when its actually been around for ages. You should know that, afterall Madrid and Spain in general have had their fair share of terrorist attacks from non-Muslim groups like ETA as has Britain from groups like the IRA.
I really don't know much about IRA and the situation in Ireland, to be honest. I should probably have to investigate more, so I will not say anything about it, as I don't have any idea.
There is a difference between the ETA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA) terrorism and the Muslim extremists terrorism, in my opinion. ETA has historically directed their acts to specific people (persons or groups), with some exception when the group was having a bad moment (economically or politically) and they did some bigger attacks. These Muslim extremist groups tend not to direct their attacks to a specific individual, but to a group, as big as possible; maybe that is the reason why we tend to see them as more dangerous than the IRA or ETA.

I don't disagree with security measures in general, I disagree with specific security measures, which I find unnecessary, inefficient and intrusive in people's right to intimacy.

You could do with taking your own advice here. I really don't think things are so black and white, I don't think the US and Saudi are best buds but what would it take to prove that? War? Aren't we supposed to be on the less war, more peace side of things?
The only thing I was meaning to "prove" is that fighting for peace does not make sense, and that saying that you fight to "bring democracy and human rights to X country" is false... they won't fight unless they have a special interest in a special country for a reason that does not have anything to do with human rights or democracy.
I guess that it will be difficult for us (me and you I mean) to agree, but I'm not trying to take it personal, just trying to explain you my views.

Back on topic, I think that every time US citizens lose their rights to protect themselves from the terrorists, terrorists have won a battle. Their objective is to make people live in fear, and if you accept every security measure they try to impose you, they will win a battle.

[missroxor]

I'm not proposing submission. But it seems like you're actually defending a police state. Is having someone assume you're a terrorist and grope you your idea of freedom?

There's a happy medium somewhere. People are just too lazy (or too cheap) to look for it. Alternatives have already been suggested in this thread, so I won't bother rehashing them here.

And what is "their way", exactly? Are you saying that if we give up on terrorism, we'll all adopt a jihadist mindset, become terrorists, and blow up innocent people? (Makes sense... :blink:) Or is this some sort of veiled Islamophobic statement about how Muslims are going to take over the world and make us all wear burqas?

I've just finished discussing for a good half a page about how terrorists come in all shapes and sizes and that its not just Muslim organisations that are responsible for terrorism......srsly, this is what I meant by people putting words in my mouth. I don't see how you managed to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 3? When I said "their way" I was referring to whatever the terrorists (of any race or religion) are demanding, their reasons for being terrorists.

I'm not defending a police state, I too believe/hope there must be a happy medium. I was trying to express what I've said all along, that some security is needed, we can't just take a chill pill and not bother our arses with security because as long as we just stop being dicks everything will be hunky dorey. Yes, 'we' caused most of it and now its coming back to bite us on the ass but we don't have to stick our arse in the air to give them better purchase, do we? Oh, and because apparently I have to explain every detail of everything I say now, by "we" I mean the British and American people and any other nation who has security measures to protect from terrorism and by "they" I mean terrorists in general, not one specific race, religion or organisation.

I have some RL stuff to attend to I'll have to finish up later.

[missroxor]

....and I'm back.

Fakepeeps, with regards to the last half of your post I think you're seeing an argument where there is none. Read those two separate quotes one after the other which is how I posted them. In fact I will compare the two (yours and mine) for you:
As Winston Churchill once said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life". Not everything governments fight for is worthwhile or just but I sure as hell bet that not everything terrorists fight for is either.
First off, Winston’s (yeah, we’re on first name terms) statement doesn’t at any point say, “You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for what’s right”. I thought I reiterated this notion when I said, “Not everything governments fight for is worthwhile”. I wasn’t making some right wing, communist propaganda statement and neither was Winston (ffs people, you might identify me as the least passive person here but I’m not a f*$%ing blood thirsty Nazi! Stop making me out to be worse than I am so you have somebody to shout at!), I was only saying in a roundabout way that at the end of the day we all have different beliefs, there’s no big world rule book that can determine once and for all who is right and who is wrong because we all look to different books, be they religious or legal. So no matter how nice we are, there’s always gonna be people standing up for their beliefs and butting heads over it. What ‘our’ government wants might be wrong but that doesn’t mean that what terrorists want is right.....which is why I was saying right before this quote that submission is not always the answer.
Just because you've made some enemies does not automatically mean you've done something right. Hitler had enemies. So did Stalin. If you stand up for the wrong things, you can make enemies just as well as if you stand up for the right ones......That statement is certainly true. But I'm not sure what your point is.See any similarities?
No, that was not what I was meaning to say. I said "the arabs" because they are the main concern when it comes to US and international terrorism, but I meant it as a general international terrorist threat.
Ok, but just to be clear, I still specifically said in the bit you quoted from me that there was no need to get hysterical and assume everyone (arabs or otherwise) is trying to kill us so there was no need for you to direct that statement at me :)

TBH, I don’t know a great deal about the IRA or the ETA either, just what I’ve read. I only mentioned them as an example that both of us could relate to that showed that a. Al Qu’aida didn’t invent terrorism (neither did the IRA or ETA mind), b. it’s not something new that was invented to counteract the American government and c. It’s not something caused only by having soldiers in the Middle East (though as I said before, it really doesn’t help matters).

After 7 pages I'm getting a bit weary of this, I feel like we're going round in circles repeating ourselves constantly.... If anybody directs a point to me specifically I'll try to answer but otherwise I'm retiring from this debate because at the end of the day we're all just gonna agree to disagree anyway, there's no winner in internet debates....well, actually I'll be agreeing to disagree on some things and agreeing to agree on others ;) I'm off to play with pixel dollies :luff: They're all about the peace....well, except for a few bad eggs ;)

[RoseCity]

RoseCity, will you start actually reading my posts before you go off half-cocked and reply to them in such an accusing tone? The rules of engagement aren't supposed to "explain why we invaded Iraq in the first place". Nor was any part of my post. ROE is just a set of rules that soldiers must follow when they're in combat situations. I mentioned them to support my point that while both sides are in the business of killing, terrorists don't give a crap who they kill: military, civilians, women, children, elderly etc whereas troops (I don't think US and UK ROE are exactly the same but I don't know what the differences. Americans are known for being more gun-ho than us Brits though) actually have to think about each and every kill and decide whether or not each attack would benefit more people than it would harm to not attack. Of course it would be much better if there were no wars ever and nobody had to die but unfortunately we don't live in a fairytale. People full of hate and anger (on both sides) have no desire for world peace.

Let's not turn this into something it's not, we're supposed to be discussing current and future terrorism and what lengths we should or shouldn't be going to to protect against it, not military/world history.
I'm only posting this for clarification.
I'm not sure how facts can be stated in an 'accusing tone' but whatever. (Note, however, that I've used civil language).
My point at the time was that there are other reasons why Muslims for example might be angry at the US besides hating 'our very culture' - I know you said that invading their countries 'doesn't help matters', but that seemed like something of an understatement. I was only talking about the US - I'm not dragging the UK, Spain or any other country into it. It was you who brought up the rules of engagement - I was using Iraq as an example. Who are the terrorists here?The unprovoked invasion of a country, leaving 90,000+ civilians dead and the country in ruins qualifies to my mind as an act of terrorism. Does it matter to the dead that they died by the book (Rules of Engagement)? Now you clarify by saying that UK soldiers, at least, follow the rules of engagement whereas terrorists don't care who they kill, but I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

[fakepeeps7]

There's obviously a breakdown in communication here, missroxor. You can't be making your point very well if we're always misunderstanding you and putting words in your mouth.

Let's not turn this into something it's not, we're supposed to be discussing current and future terrorism and what lengths we should or shouldn't be going to to protect against it, not military/world history.

The idea that the two ideas are completely separate is the reason why our world has the problems it does. Terrorism did not arise out of a vacuum. If you try to find a solution to a problem without addressing the cause of the problem, you'll never get anywhere. At best, you'll have a Band-Aid.

[Sunbee]

Miss Roxer,
My apologies. I should have had 'one' in the second sentence as well as the first. I did not proofread adequately. I did not mean to imply that you were in any way racist.

[wickedblue]

If you're going to rant endlessly about how evil Muslims are, at least learn to spell it.

Now onto your post. Yes, we were attacked and indeed we are at war but subjecting innocent citizens to measures that violate privacy and basic dignity, while not actually increasing security at all, is not the way to handle a threat. And that's a position that I, and many others, will stand by no matter how much someone like you postulates that we should be Very Afraid of the evil Muslims 'cause they are all out to get us. Ooga Booga!

[Purity4]

or the fact that some old Redcoat or Horse Soldier ran down some primitive 150 years ago.

:blink:

so Native Americans are 'primitive' to you? Gee, thanks.

[Purity4]

Yes, we were attacked

Well, that is debatable, as in, it's debatable whether the 911 attacks were committed by anyone other than corrupt US government officials. I believe the falling of the towers were caused not by the grisly airplane show of distraction, but by the pre-planned and professionally executed demolition.

[kattenijin]

...but subjecting innocent citizens to measures that violate privacy and basic dignity, while not actually increasing security at all...

You can't substantially prove this, as these measures haven't been in place for even a full year yet. Come back in ten years and we'll discuss it then.

[wickedblue]

Well, that is debatable, as in, it's debatable whether the 911 attacks were committed by anyone other than corrupt US government officials. I believe the falling of the towers were caused not by the grisly airplane show of distraction, but by the pre-planned and professionally executed demolition.

Well, to be fair, I did say "we were attacked"; I didn't say who is responsible for the attack. ;)

[pinketamine]

This is what I hate about these sorts of conversations. I care about you people. I care about Brits, and Americans, and Danes, and civilized peoples everywhere.
What does exactly civilized people means? Because reading what you've written it seems that everyone who does not agree with the way people are supposed to live IN YOUR OPINION are not civilized.

Can't you get it through your heads that we are fighting monsters here? This isn't some silly little academic conversation about who shot John X number of years ago. This isn't about personal feelings, or hurt feelings, or misunderstandings, or miscommunication, or history, or the fact that some old Redcoat or Horse Soldier ran down some primitive 150 years ago.

The year is 2010 and it's about to be 2011. And there are tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of people in the world who want you dead. Can you get that through your head? Their dream is to see you on your knees, paying penance for all the little slights they believe they have suffered. YOU ARE AN INFIDEL! Get it? It's a very specific term for a very specific sort of person, i.e. anyone who isn't a Moslem. And if one of these guys had a vial of weaponized influenza in his hand he would pop the lid and holler: "allah akhbar!" and let the chips fall where they may. You really don't understand just how dangerous this ideology and the people who carry it are.
I don't know about you, but I'm not fighting against anyone. If you are talking about Muslim terrorists, they are still people, they are human beings, not monsters. True, there are some of these persons who have horrible ideas in their minds and they will kill other people for these ideas. However, most of these terrorist are more concerned about the "attacks" that the US and their allies have made to them than about your religion. You should revise your own ideology, because it seems incredibly dangerous to me too.

The day after 9/11 we Americans woke up to see 70,000 people on the West Bank cheering wildly at the carnage in New York. Until that time Americans were pretty well split on "the Palestinian question." Some thought the Israelis were right and some thought the Palestinians were right. Well most Americans don't have those doubts anymore, because the Palestinians made it very clear to us who our enemies are. Anyone who can wildly cheer the slaughter of civilians on such a scale is no person at all. Anyone who can do that is not "understandable" or "someone with legitimate grievances." People who cheer, as in cheer, such slaughter are called the enemy, and the enemy wants you dead. What you want, whatever you want, doesn't matter to him because again, you are an infidel, and there is only one thing to do with infidels.
Excuse me but WHAT the hell are you saying? The attacks were not committed by Palestinians. Maybe some of them were happy, yeah, that's bad, but let me tell you that I'm sure that many Americans celebrate other's people death. Apparently you live in a golden bubble where you and your country are angels and everyone wants to attack you and kill you.

Do you want objective evidence or worse yet scientific proof? Start with just about any man on the street poll taken in the Moslem world. Don't ask me what Pakistanis think of us; try asking a Pakistani as in one that lives in Pakistan. Chances are he wants you dead. He wants our civilization dead, and if he's a true believer he wants all of the world to submit to Allah. Deny any of this. Prove me wrong.
The problem with the US is that they support dictators (Saddam Hussein, for example) and extremists, then they don't find that support useful anymore and they become enemies with those they helped becoming powerful. And that is exactly what they did with the Talibans and Osama Bin Laden during the war between Afghanistan and the RSU. Seriously, inform yourself before claiming things.

Apparently, you fail at knowing that Pakistan's Secret Service contacted with the CIA before the 11-s because they had information pointing that something like that could happen. They HAD proofs. CIA had information. They did nothing.
A month before the 11-S, Vladimir Putin informed the US Government that the Russian secret services had discovered that some terrorists had been planing attacks to the US. The information they had is that "25 terrorists were going to kidnap planes and make them crash during suicidal missions". The following Secret Services gave similar information to the US: Russia, Egypt, Israel, Germany, France.
The German Secret Services informed US: There are terrorist coming from Mid Orient who are planning to kidnap passengers planes and use the to attack important symbols of the United States.
The terrorists who committed the crimes got their plane driving licenses in the United States, and the instructors noticed various alarming things, which were informed to the FBI and the CIA.

I could provide you much more information about the 11-S if you want. Oh, and just so you know, the US had planned to attack Afghanistan BEFORE the 11-S. And I can provide documents to prove what I've said.

[Oaktree]

This is what I hate about these sorts of conversations. I care about you people. I care about Brits, and Americans, and Danes, and civilized peoples everywhere.

But no love for your fellow man as a whole? And what about those uncivilized Brits, Americans, and Danes? All of those people you exclude from the classification of being "civilized" are just as capable of it as those whom you include; we are all one species and, while you may not approve of some of the cultural differences, the inherent nature of those other people is no different from your own.

Can't you get it through your heads that we are fighting monsters here? This isn't some silly little academic conversation about who shot John X number of years ago. This isn't about personal feelings, or hurt feelings, or misunderstandings, or miscommunication, or history, or the fact that some old Redcoat or Horse Soldier ran down some primitive 150 years ago.

We want to fight the monsters, but the monsters have gotten remarkably good at placing the innocents in their path. Those who actually belong to the terrorist sects are nowhere to be found, while innocent civilians are forced into strapping bombs to their bodies.

The year is 2010 and it's about to be 2011. And there are tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of people in the world who want you dead. Can you get that through your head? Their dream is to see you on your knees, paying penance for all the little slights they believe they have suffered. YOU ARE AN INFIDEL! Get it? It's a very specific term for a very specific sort of person, i.e. anyone who isn't a Moslem. And if one of these guys had a vial of weaponized influenza in his hand he would pop the lid and holler: "allah akhbar!" and let the chips fall where they may. You really don't understand just how dangerous this ideology and the people who carry it are.

It certainly seems that you have the same degree of vindictiveness and bloodlust that you attribute to them.

The day after 9/11 we Americans woke up to see 70,000 people on the West Bank cheering wildly at the carnage in New York. Until that time Americans were pretty well split on "the Palestinian question." Some thought the Israelis were right and some thought the Palestinians were right. Well most Americans don't have those doubts anymore, because the Palestinians made it very clear to us who our enemies are. Anyone who can wildly cheer the slaughter of civilians on such a scale is no person at all. Anyone who can do that is not "understandable" or "someone with legitimate grievances." People who cheer, as in cheer, such slaughter are called the enemy, and the enemy wants you dead. What you want, whatever you want, doesn't matter to him because again, you are an infidel, and there is only one thing to do with infidels.

70,000 out of 4,000,000. Is it worth it to destroy so many innocent lives to punish those who merely express an opinion? To the best of our knowledge, Palestine had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. It may have made a rather distasteful statement regarding it's feelings for us, but insult does not equate to injury. It's just as childish as getting into a fight with someone because they insulted your mother.

Do you want objective evidence or worse yet scientific proof? Start with just about any man on the street poll taken in the Moslem world. Don't ask me what Pakistanis think of us; try asking a Pakistani as in one that lives in Pakistan. Chances are he wants you dead. He wants our civilization dead, and if he's a true believer he wants all of the world to submit to Allah. Deny any of this. Prove me wrong.

I know several Pakistanis and none of them hate Americans. A couple of them are even aware of the fact that I'm agnostic, but they've never called me an infidel for it. This does not constitute scientific evidence stating that Pakistanis in general do not want harm to come to the US, but your argument is even less scientific, as you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim.

I refer you back to Eddie Rickenbacker's statement. You want to be safe. You want to think this is just some special sort of mundane crime that happens now and then, and that it's just a matter of routine law enforcement. Well it's not. This is war: Whether you like it or not, whether it upsets your political views and agenda or not, and whether or not you want to see it that way. There are guys, lots of guys, who want you dead and worse, their heads filled with hellish dreams of your demise, and if you can't see that then you're meat on the table as far as they're concerned.

I think you are being entirely unreasonable. If they truly thirst for our blood, why have there been so few terrorist attacks? I doubt that they would hit a couple of targets and then leave us be. No, what's really going on is that they want to see us panicking and fantasizing about their intentions the way you are. They are called terrorists because they are looking to sow terror. For you, they have done so. For me, I see the slim odds and the small number of people who do these acts and I find the threat almost trivial.

That's why trying to deal with every possible sort of attack is impossible. Attacks will be made and attacks will succeed. You are not safe. You never will be so long as the enemy has the will to fight. Strangling our own liberty does nothing to stop the enemy. Surrendering liberties and freedoms makes nobody safer. Only clear-headed recognition of what needs to be done can make you safe again, once the war is over. And that's just what this is; a war.

I do agree that we should not restrict our liberties. The line has become cliche at this point, but, to restrict our liberties out of fear means that "the terrorists have won".

For those who respond to this post please do me two favors: At no point in this post did I say that all Moslems are bad. So please forgo the "straw man" arguments and the "ad hominem" attacks. They are two very cheap tricks that only convince fools of their own convictions. If you would like to add to what I've said, legitimately debate something here, emphasize, elaborate, etc. then by all means go ahead and do so. Believe it or not I don't post just to hear myself rattle: I really do appreciate and sometimes treasure the input of others, but ego contests and complaints of hurt feelings hold very little interest for me.

-yours always. Svet

You avoid saying outright that you think all Muslims are bad, but you find other ways of expressing it. You claim that the majority of Pakistanis want us dead. Pakistan is a country historically defined by its Muslim population. You make many vague generalizations about the number of Muslims out there who want to see you "paying penance for all the little slights they believe they have suffered". You speak as if there is an imminent threat of war on American soil. You never differentiate between those Muslims whom you are presenting as would-be mass murderers and those Muslims who simply wish to live out their lives.

[unalisaa]

I care about you people. I care about [...] Danes,[...]

I chew with my mouth open. It's very uncharming, I assure you.

[HystericalParoxysm]

MTS Staff Note: This debate topic is about airport full body scanners.

And their merits (or lack thereof) in terms of additional safety as well as the issues surrounding them (4th amendment, invasion of privacy, etc.).

This is not about the relative levels of civilization of various cultures or a war against Muslims in general ( :WTF: :WTF: :WTF: ).

Please stay on topic - again, airport security, full body scanners, that sort of thing. Any further posts dragging this debate off-topic will be deleted and the poster warned for not following directions.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Well, that is the one thing I agree with you on - I believe the scanners are a violation of the 4th amendment, and are not the correct approach to make people safer. Unfortunately, I don't think -anything- can really make people safer for air travel - if you deal with one particular type of threat, there will always be another one. Terrorists come in all colours, with many different ideologies and reasons for wanting to hurt people, and even if you deal with the main avenues of threat right now in the best ways possible (again, don't know what they are but assuming there is a best way that would reduce the threat the most out of anything), in 10 or 20 years, another group will crop up with different reasons for doing what they're doing, finding new tactics to get past whatever new security methods have been put in place.

But I'm not willing to give up my right to privacy and my right to not be unreasonably searched without cause for the illusion of safety.

[RoseCity]

More news from Bizarro World. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/)

[Robodl95]

I think we completely underestimate our enemies. They're not idiots, and they're able to get an internet connection also. They definitely learned some things since 9/11 and of course so have we but I still feel like we're a step behind. They're just going to keep coming up with more and more horrendous plots that we're unprepared for.

[Honeywell]

More news from Bizarro World. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/)I don't agree with the TSA measures at all but the "very arrogant and expresses contempt against airport passenger procedures" behavioral indicator mirrors my experience as a bank manager with people committing fraud/check cashing schemes. So to find out that's one of the criteria used isn't a complete WTF for me (even though you'd think criminals/terrorists would want to avoid drawing attention to themselves) but Michael German's quote in that article sums it up the best I think:

"It's circular reasoning where, you know, I'm going to ask someone to surrender their rights; if they refuse, that's evidence that I need to take their rights away from them. And it's simply inappropriate."

Thanks for posting the link, RoseCity. :)

[Black_Barook!]

So long as the person who's patting me down is attractive then they can frisky me all night long... :giggler:

[Robodl95]

So long as the person who's patting me down is attractive then they can frisky me all night long... :giggler:
Lol! I can't imagine that you'll be as pleased while your gf is getting patted down, don't they have someone of the same sex pat you down anyway?

[wickedblue]

I am having mixed reactions to this comment.

1. Eww at the implication of jealousy over the girlfriend being patted down by an attractive agent.
2. Some people are attracted to the same sex so...?
3. I don't think sexualizing the situation makes it any better. I realize this was all started as humor but I just don't think it's funny.

[Mistermook]

Frankly I think some of the issue is that slapping a terrorist label on criminal acts makes it more newsworthy than other criminal acts, which makes them more politically viable, which makes them more effective even if they fail. If another 9/11 happened tomorrow it would be horrible, but in absolute terms it wouldn't even begin to approach the Japanese tsunami disaster and it wouldn't begin approach the harm done by obesity and heart disease and cancer and car accidents...A life is a life, but people are really outlandishly shitty about prioritizing stuff and in the grand scheme of things terrorists are generally a bunch of pussies when it comes to killing people. World War One? THAT killed a bunch of people with violence. The whole point of terrorism is to scare people, that's why it's called terrorism. Overreacting to these morons is how they win.

Instead I'd love for our overreacting to come out in identifying the support networks and cheerfully burying them all while retaining every possible freedom from random searches and the like. I'd rather the terrorists be doing the long, hard thoughts on the consequences of terrorism than us, because no one pays any attention to them in the first place except to note afterward how many of the terrorists associates and family were also killed in the reprisal attack.

[whiterider]

It seemed off to me to say that terrorism is increasing, so I checked:
Between 1961 and 1980, there were 14 acts of terrorism in European countries. 3 were carried out by domestic actors, and thus wouldn't have been helped by stricter travel controls: 11 were carried out by foreigners. 4 incidents involved an attack on a plane.
Between 1981 and 1990, there were 25 acts of terrorism in Europe, 9 were domestic, 16 were foreign. 3 incidents involved an attack on a plane.
Between 1991 and 2000, there were 13 acts of terrorism in Europe, 6 were domestic, 7 were foreign. 2 incidents involved an attack on a plane.
Between 2000 and the present day, there have been 26 acts of terrorism in Europe, 13 were domestic, 13 were foreign. 1 incident involved an attack on a plane.

It looks like we're already doing fairly well at preventing terrorists entering Europe. Obviously, we can hardly be complacent - and yes, the overall number of terrorist attacks has risen in the last few years. But clearly, Europe is becoming less vulnerable to any kind of terrorism which can be averted by stricter airport controls - if terrorists aren't getting on planes, and bombs and weapons aren't getting on planes, then stopping people or things getting on planes won't help. Shouldn't we focus our efforts on improving domestic security, over extra measures for airport security?


I included any successful attack targeted at the public - so not attacks on military, police etc. unless there were also foreseeable civilian deaths - and which did not have a specific target, such as a politician or other controversial figure. Info from here: http://www.crimsonbird.com/terrorism/timeline.htm http://www.timelineofterrorism.com/ and Wikipedia.

[Mistermook]

Thanks for doing that. I thought about it, but decided I had more important things to do when I discovered the data wasn't as readily available as I'd like.

I think part of the problem is that people are more and more likely zeroing in on a particular flavor of terrorism without quite understanding that quite a lot of things are definitely terrorism, and some things that are in fact terrorist attacks (like blowing up abortion clinics and assaulting abortion doctors) aren't "just" the other criminal acts they most assuredly are, but are politically motivated acts of violence. These days there's a strong subset of people who seem to forget that not every act of terrorism is launched from a Middle Eastern or immigrant platform. Some of these folks are just kids like Wojtek, and I sort of forgive people for focusing strongly on the sorts of terrorists that they're most familiar with, but in my lifetime there's been terrorists that were absolutely not having anything to do with our recent flavor of the month - the IRA, Japanese Red Army, various black power and far left wing domestic terrorists... It's not at all simple stopping terrorists because an awful lot of terrorism isn't some cell structure spy ring infiltrating from elsewhere. All it would take, for instance, to upgrade Wojtek's "homosexuals getting beaten in Poland" to a domestic terrorism agenda is a bit of slight of hand and some organization, and suddenly they're beating homosexuals to prevent them asking for political reform and therefore terrorists.

[wickedblue]

Oh my, what an original argument. We're being too sensitive, behaving like children, etc., because we don't want our rights violated. There have been plenty good arguments made, in this thread even, that are not at all "overemotional". So that would be a good place to start.

[Robodl95]

Good, but can we actually discuss the airport full body scanners?

I was very surprised when I saw peoples' rants about those safety measures. Why do you feel your rights are violated? I think some people are simply overemotional and behave like kids.
Scanners are put in place because of security, you have to discuss the threats in order to determine if scanners are necessary/ the best choice to cut down on attacks.

You don't see any reason why people might feel like their rights are being violated when other people can look at a full body nude photograph of themselves? There are several religions which have very strict rules against who and who isn't allowed to see you naked. And there's also the thing with children, I can't find the article I read it in but it was about the 6 year old in KY with the patdown, it went something like "We teach our children that's it's not okay for people to touch you in certain places, then we have to say that it's okay for this person to." (By "Those safety measures" I took it to mean scanners and patdowns, I think this has evolved into a general airport security debate anyway...)

I think that the security measures are necessary but I also think that they can improve upon them such as doing less intense searches for kids.

[pinketamine]

I was very surprised when I saw peoples' rants about those safety measures. Why do you feel your rights are violated? I think some people are simply overemotional and behave like kids.

I don't know, I've always thought that I totally have the right not to be seen naked by a stranger, unless I want a particular stranger to see me naked. It is a part of the right to privacy, in my opinion.
Also, I have personal and emotional problems with the idea of being seen naked or being patted down. I would honestly prefer not to travel by plane than being touched by some random guy at the airport, but that might count just as a personal option.

[Mistermook]

Security exists in the context and intent of the threats to security. How do you evaluate how much security you need if you can't properly evaluate what the challenges your face are? Creating security simply for the sake of security is wasted. Spending resources to secure a door from outside intruders when the threat is sitting next to you is wasted resources. Every security measure also has a tolerance level for "how much of this can I support before it starts interfering with the way I want to do my business," and that's also relevant to what we're talking about. Locking your door is something most of us agree is probably a good idea, but I've known people who lived far enough away from anyone that they never bothered and I've seen people with rows of locks on their doors that I can't imagine having to deal with on a daily basis (especially since if I were a criminal I'd forgo the locks entirely and just knock down the damned door if I wanted in.) If your security becomes onerous then it's not doing its job. If it doesn't actually meet the threat because you don't understand what the threat is, it's not doing its job. If you build security mechanisms for no reason other than you feel less safe then it's not doing its job, because there is no job.

[Mistermook]

So maybe we'll just let everyone enter the plane without any control because the control is unnecessary according to you. If you really detest those full body scanners I assume your heads are full of different ideas on how to change that.
"Well, since you want to shit on kittens and molest puppies, why don't you just set yourself on fire and launch yourself from a cannon at the moon!"

It's called a Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) argument. Bravo for attempting it, it's very classy. Since we're talking about security, I suggest you go for the logical fallacy of the false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) next. That's the customary step:

"Terrorists are everywhere! Do you want people to die? Or do you just want them to die horribly in a fire?"

[HystericalParoxysm]

Mistermook:

http://i55.tinypic.com/11azp1i.gif

Everything you said. Should be in bold, 40 point blinking red text. Srsly. I <3 u and I award you elebenty internets.

[Robodl95]

So maybe we'll just let everyone enter the plane without any control because the control is unnecessary according to you. If you really detest those full body scanners I assume your heads are full of different ideas on how to change that.
Who here said that they detest scanners and who's said that control is unnecessary? Don't put words into people's mouths.....

Realistically when was the last time that we had a terrorist attack committed by someone under 13 or so? Considering that this is a pretty low risk demographic I think that it would make sense to do less intense searches on them. Also why not have some sort of trusted flier program to cut down on searches for regular fliers (like people who fly from LA to Chicago every couple weeks).

[RoseCity]

Mistermook:

Everything you said. Should be in bold, 40 point blinking red text. Srsly. I <3 u and I award you elebenty internets.

Should I have posted the CNN report about the 70 behavioral indicators in a new thread? It wasn't about the full body scanners, but it seemed like a continuation of the discussion.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Simmer down, Poland. Exaggerating what someone said to the point of putting words in their mouth and then responding to the arguments you made up for them is the definition of a straw man argument, and you're still doing exactly that.

[Sunbee]

Wotjek, I know the Soviets, who unfortunately had a heck-of-a-lot-of-say in your area for far too long weren't particularly concerned about personal privacy, and probably part of your not understanding why Americans find this disturbing is related to their influence on your society. We're in a country where, if we get pulled over for speeding, and the officer wants to search our car and sees no visible evidence of a crime being committed, he has to ask permission, and we can deny it. If he still wants to search, he has to go get a warrant from a judge. American citizens (legal non-citizen immigrants are a different story) aren't required to carry id under most circumstances--we must carry a drivers license if we're driving, but otherwise, legally, we don't have to. I frequently don't if I'm walking to where I'm going. The police could ask me for it, but I don't have to have it to show them. I don't know how things are in your homeland, but this is what Americans are used to, and if things are very different where you are, then that could explain a lot. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night and is armed or appears to be armed, I have what is considered, in my state, reasonable cause to shoot to kill. And even if the government tried to bring charges for that, which they wouldn't, they couldn't find a jury in this state to convict. Just to confuse you further, what rights I have in that situation depend on what state in the US I am in. If I lived in New York or California, I would have to be more threatened to shoot in my home and make some efforts to escape. If I lived in Texas, I believe it's less--ask a Texan. The concept is called Castle Doctrine if you want to google it. Americans tend to argue a lot about these sorts of things, but in general, we expect the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure. It's in our constitution, and we tend to throw fits, argue on line, have protests, and hire attorneys if we feel like our government is violating that right.
Many Americans object to TSA agents having the ability to do things to us that the regular police do not have. Our government gets around this legally by saying, while we have a right to interstate travel, there's no right to travel by plane. We could take cars instead. And many of us do. You can look at how badly the airlines are hurting financially, and particularly how badly they were doing while every other part of the economy was booming. I haven't flown since '03. Only my oldest child has ever been on a plane. As long as these rules are in effect, my kids won't fly. Even if it takes me a week and costs me more money, I'll drive instead.
Many of us don't think this security theater makes us any safer. Some of us thinks it puts us at more risk--not just from our government but from terrorists. A lot of us think that our government's wasting money trying to shut the barn door after the horse got out and should be focusing on other areas instead.

[whiterider]

HP does not live in America, Wojtek. She's very much European of late (and lives in a country so horribly improverished that they don't even sell Twinings!).

The comments criticising airport security in the past couple of pages have been thus:

Is scanning intrusive? Yes, I say it is. I say it sacrifices liberty. I say that scanning everyone, no matter who they are makes us no safer.I believe the scanners are a violation of the 4th amendment, and are not the correct approach to make people safer.Shouldn't we focus our efforts on improving domestic security, over extra measures for airport security?
I see absolutely no-one, except Wojtek, who has said anything about removing all controls at airports.

By the way, your last paragraph is a Slippery Slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) argument. The fact that someone objects to airport scanners doesn't mean they're going to object to every other privacy-invading thing. I haven't yet decided whether or not I'm in favour of airport scanners. However, I'll never have a problem with being recorded on CCTV: CCTV has very measurable crime prevention and remedy effects, and the invasion of privacy is minimal - the only way any significant information could be collected on me by CCTV is if the person had access to CCTV from a wide variety of sources (essentially, they'd have to be the police), if they knew where I'd been and when as a starting point, and if they had a specific reason to look for me. Airport scanners aren't going to change that situation.
Similarly, an objection to airport scanners doesn't mean that a person can't recognise that information about themselves that they post online, for example on facebook, is going to publicly available, and that if they're not ok with that they shouldn't post the information.
Orange juice and two litres of undiluted absinthe are both drinks. The fact that I choose to drink orange juice doesn't mean I'm automatically going to drink absinthe - ever. Degrees are very, very important.

[wickedblue]

Can't you really find any more important problems in your country like unemployment and poverty?

Weird, I totally thought people were capable of holding more than one thought in their head at a time.

[vhanster]

Actually, I think most of the people here who disagrees with the Full Body Scanners just don't want strangers to see them naked. It's not the same as saying that the airport controls should be removed.

[Robodl95]

If you think that what Mistermook says is stupid then why do you keep responding to him? It's best to just ignore people that you can't stand rather than arguing with them in every thread and going off on a weird rant that has nothing to do with airport security.

[RoseCity]

Personal privacy is something everyone wants to have but don't exaggerate! If a stranger is standing too close, will you start accusing him or her of abusing your right of privacy? Maybe don't leave your home because there are cameras everywhere and they're going to show everyone your body. Maybe consider removing your Facebook account because strangers have access to your pictures (or one picture if you lock your gallery). Enter your name and surname in Google and if you have a Facebook account you'll find yourself. Sue Google and Facebook for invading your privacy. Sue the local store because they have cameras. Paranoia! Can't you really find any more important problems in your country like unemployment and poverty? I can't really understand why adults behave like 5 year old children.
Right to privacy is one of the issues surrounding the use of the full body scanners. Mistermook was saying, I think, what is the use of something that not only violates someone's rights, but at the same time doesn't accomplish its stated goal - to prevent a terrorist from boarding an airplane. Our civil rights are being chipped away day after day.
I was reading about Israeli airport security. Their system is based on intense scrutiny of each traveler starting from the moment they enter the airport zone. Each person is questioned and observed - at the checkpoint driving into the airport, entering the terminal, checking in, etc. Anyone can be taken at any time for more extensive questioning which can go on for hours - they don't worry about detaining someone. Profiling is a big component, meaning Arab/Muslims are detained most frequently. On the other hand you won't be asked to remove your shoes, your shampoo won't be taken away, you won't be given a full body scan because they don't believe these things have any value.
I also read some commentaries that don't think the Israeli system could be implemented in the US because the country is too big, there are too many airports, too many travelers and racial profiling wouldn't be tolerated. But I think that's what the 70 behavioral indicators are about - 70 behaviors probably cover most of the things any person might be doing at any given time, thus anyone can be detained on the basis of their behavior when the real reason might be their appearance.

[Tempscire]

Realistically when was the last time that we had a terrorist attack committed by someone under 13 or so? Considering that this is a pretty low risk demographic I think that it would make sense to do less intense searches on them. Also why not have some sort of trusted flier program to cut down on searches for regular fliers (like people who fly from LA to Chicago every couple weeks).
I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here.

1. One of the...disappointing things about the practices of airport security is how reactionary they have been, e.g. someone tries shoe bomb, now we take off shoes. In some ways that might be more practical: it's impossible to protect against every possible threat or even to conceive every possible threat scenario, and difficult/expensive to actually take preemptive actions against those threats.

On the other hand, someone really wanting to get an explosive on a plane may be very willing to use a child to get it there on the basis that we consider children to be innocent and harmless. Perhaps eventually some attempt would come to utilizing a child as a tool in a terrorist attack. It's not like that kind of thing has never been tried in the course of history.

Similarly, most terrorist attacks, to my knowledge, tend to be carried out by men. Perhaps ladies should be getting a lot more free passes through security as a low(er)-risk demographic. (Or do they already?)

2. Likewise... If I were part of a terrorist cell wanting to bring death and destruction upon America, I might have no problem waiting X years to get myself in a frequent flier business position of established trust and lessened scrutiny, if it seemed the payoff would be worth the investment in time. (Honestly, it seems like there's a billion and one simpler, less protected ways to attack our infrastructure that haven't happened yet that makes me have a hard time taking the threat seriously. Are the terrorists that get to American soil that uncreative that they can only attack planes and airports? Is there something inherently superior about them? Think of a shopping mall. No security screening besides anti-theft, crowded, popular hallmarks of American consumption and socialization... But always with the airports. I digress.)

Security is not just a trade-off with privacy but also convenience. If we truly wanted to be secure, well, we'd be using different techniques at airports and have those methods installed in a LOT more places, but also we'd e.g. have every single person getting scanned and patted down every single time because you never know when someone's planted something on them, blackmailed them into attempting something, when their lifestyle is actually a well-cultivated front, when they've changed sides, or so on. But we can't do that because it's impractical, and we won't do that because it'd be inconvenient. A lot of security holes occur due to someone not being bothered to take care of something for whatever reason, so perhaps we should take the proactive approach when we are able.

[Robodl95]

Continuing with the devils advocate, it's impossible to protect against every threat. First off (mainly in the case of Europe rather than the US) terrorists can take any mode of transportation, a car, train, boat, foot, etc. so if we wanted to really be "safe" we'd need to scan all those things but it would be redundant and financially impossible to do so. Anybody can conceal a machine gun and shoot into a large crowd at any moment. Terrorists are amazingly adaptable. How do you keep the country safe without violating privacy and creating a large inconvenience?

[Mistermook]

Mistermook was saying, I think, what is the use of something that not only violates someone's rights, but at the same time doesn't accomplish its stated goal - to prevent a terrorist from boarding an airplane.
I'm not going to address the crazy talk from Krakow, but I'll clarify my position on security:

If something is vital and necessary for an impending, immediate threat of dire consequence then nearly anything imaginable can and should be on the table to prevent it from happening. That's to say, it's reasonable if the world is about to end and the only way to stop it is to rape little boys somehow, then as horrifying as that might be I think it's a presentable option. I just hope the people who rescue the planet in that case follow it up with a tidy suicide so no one is presented with the option of thanking them for it.

That's the extreme case though, the position of principle. The real world is more nuanced and complicated than that. Whether or not a security measure is good is a factor of whether it's needed, stops the threat it's meant to address, and how onerous it is in the first place. All of these things are vital when assigning some sort of value on things like intrusive scanning technology and grab-assing pat-downs by airport security.

1. The primary purpose of airport security is not to eliminate all possible threats known and unknown. This is impossible. There is no perfect security.

2. The true purpose is to ensure the economic engine of air travel moves about without disruption.

3. Therefore security measures must prevent disruptions by

3a. addressing specific known threats to ease of travel, whether that's bombs or drunks or snakes on the mother#@$&ing plane.

3b. not become so disruptive in themselves as to constitute an economic hurdle to travel

That's all really. I think a lot of the security options we're implementing right now have a place, but I'm not convinced that they're being enacted properly, with good training and oversight, for credible reasons, and to address credible threats.

[harmonee_el]

Why are people complaining so much about this!In my opinion if you find this offensive,than don't fly.Seems to me some people probably do have something to hide if they complain so much.If we had this before 9/11,the people on those planes and in those buildings would still be alive.And people have been known throughout history to hide things(drugs,bombs,weapons,etc) on a child's body?

[Tempscire]

Seems to me some people probably do have something to hide if they complain so much.
I hate this argument so much. Surely there's a logical fallacy somewhere devoted solely to describing it. You don't need to have something to hide to not want your privacy violated.
Or would you be willing to open your Facebook page to the world, publish all your emails and text messages, record and upload your phone conversations...? If not, why not?

If we had this before 9/11,the people on those planes and in those buildings would still be alive.
We had security measures in place before 9/11. If we had used them effectively, it might have been prevented. For example (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/28/MNGQ04JEEH1.DTL):
In a separate report Tuesday, the 10-member bipartisan commission revealed that nine of the 19 hijackers had been flagged by the Federal Aviation Administration's computer passenger screening system before boarding their flights. ... FAA procedures at the time called for the luggage of the "selectees" to be screened for explosives.

According to the report, three of the five hijackers aboard Flight 11 were designated selectees by the computer system, known as CAPPS, but one hijacker had checked no luggage and screeners scanned the bags of the other two for explosives. All five hijackers aboard American Flight 77 -- which crashed into the Pentagon -- were selectees and their luggage was held before they were confirmed on the aircraft, and no further screening was done.

[whiterider]

Following on from what Mistermook said... I understand the need for airport security absolutely: but I don't understand the plane-specific hysteria.

It has been common knowledge for years that the London tube is a great target for terrorists, and indeed it was bombed twice on 7/7. However, there is minimal security on the tube - there are British Transport Police officers here and there, and signs giving the emergency numbers to call if you see something suspicious. There's CCTV, of course, and ticket barriers which any malicious teenager can vault easily - that's it. No check-in. No bag searches or scans, no body scans, no metal detectors. But let me tell you - a big, correctly-detonated bomb in the tube, would mean fire exploding down this confined space, probably continuing as far as the nearest station in both directions at least. In rush hour, there can be hundreds of passengers on each tube train, and two or three trains on each stretch of track. The death toll would be unimaginable - much worse than a plane exploding.

So why are the airport security measures so much harsher than the tube measures, or the measures on any other country's underground system? Why are we, as a society, so paralysed over the possibility of terrorism on a plane - an arguably very uncommon occurrence - above all else?

[pinketamine]

Why are people complaining so much about this!In my opinion if you find this offensive,than don't fly.Seems to me some people probably do have something to hide if they complain so much.If we had this before 9/11,the people on those planes and in those buildings would still be alive.And people have been known throughout history to hide things(drugs,bombs,weapons,etc) on a child's body?

The solution isn't "if you don't like it, don't fly". Well, there is a case when that would be the solution: Nobody flies, flying companies complain to governments, governments put some of the most hated security measures out, people fly again.

Anyway, you can't use that argument, because that argument allows anything. Let's say my government declares a day when, if you wear something black, they can put your clothes off and then you have to walk naked the whole day. Should I just stay on my hose that day... or should I complain and say "that shit is stupid and disrespectful". It is a silly example, but that was my point, you can't allow governments (or whatever) to ask you what they want and "if you don't like it just leave". People should try to improve the situations, not disliking them and just moving somewhere else.

Why does some people make such a fuss about people fighting for their rights?

Whiterider, I totally agree with you. Madrid has a great tube system, an attack there would be just... incredibly dangerous. And you just have those ticket barriers... and sometimes someone who asks you for your ticket, that's all.

[RoseCity]

Following on from what Mistermook said... I understand the need for airport security absolutely: but I don't understand the plane-specific hysteria.

It has been common knowledge for years that the London tube is a great target for terrorists, and indeed it was bombed twice on 7/7. However, there is minimal security on the tube - there are British Transport Police officers here and there, and signs giving the emergency numbers to call if you see something suspicious. There's CCTV, of course, and ticket barriers which any malicious teenager can vault easily - that's it. No check-in. No bag searches or scans, no body scans, no metal detectors. But let me tell you - a big, correctly-detonated bomb in the tube, would mean fire exploding down this confined space, probably continuing as far as the nearest station in both directions at least. In rush hour, there can be hundreds of passengers on each tube train, and two or three trains on each stretch of track. The death toll would be unimaginable - much worse than a plane exploding.

So why are the airport security measures so much harsher than the tube measures, or the measures on any other country's underground system? Why are we, as a society, so paralysed over the possibility of terrorism on a plane - an arguably very uncommon occurrence - above all else?
Maybe it has to do with the fact that it's possible to screen people in an airport or it seems like it's possible. And there's the money making aspect - corporations get contracts to make the gadgets like the full body scanners. And this thing. (http://secprodonline.com/articles/2011/03/09/researchers-develop-facial-lie-detector-screener-for-airports-border-crossings.aspx)
People are habituated to using an underground train system to get around in cities and so many people are using it that it wouldn't be possible to screen them all or it seems too daunting to attempt. So our brains allow us to be comfortable with the odds that we won't be on the train the moment the terrorist attack takes place. But who knows, maybe screening subway or tube riders is next.

[Robodl95]

We're way too fixated with what has happened before but we really need to worry about other gaps in security and how we can solve them.