Airport Screening Abuse Growing

[LightningCrash]

[Broken External Image]

That picture is not from a body scanner, BTW.
It was simply a nude photo inverted by conspiracy theorists to demonize the scanning machines. I have actually seen it posted with the Infowars logo on it... I do not know if they created the mashup or not. The buckle and pistol are photoshopped in from real backscatter xray images of a man.

mm wave and backscatter xray machines do not display hair. period.

The photos are taken from an artists nude anatomical reference catalog.
The series is called Body in 360°. It's a CD of royalty-free photos of a nude woman.

Infowars of course has not retracted their article and still stand by their ridiculous commentary.

 

[vvvvvvv]

And likely so would a stray bullet through the skin of a pressurized aircraft cabin...

That's been debunked on multiple occassions...

 

[Henry]

I didn't like it when they wouldn't let me carry my own pistol on board, then my knives, now it doesn't seem so unusual. The same will hold true with the scanners. Nothing to hide, no fear! I think, if they are not going to let me defend myself on an airplane, they better do it before the thing takes off. The scanners will not keep me from flying, nor do I believe it will stop very many. I'll pick up my guns and knives at the baggage claim

 

[RidgeHunter]

Just like airports are not a justified exception to you?

I never said that. I just debate on the internet for practice...but maybe.

I personally feel that the government has shown a need for added security in a way that hasn't happened yet for restaurants or other businesses. If the government wants to put scanners in those places then it'd have to show me why it was needed, as it stands now, it hasn't.

Why do they have to show you the need? What if they show me the need, and I agree with while you don't?

I think that if 50 people were shot to death in a chain restaurant in Americas Heartland, it would be a huge threat to our nation. Everything from our economy to our national security would be damaged.

I see the need, so why does it matter if donner does too?

And again, you 15 person example creates a situation where it's almost unavoidable, which is why i'm saying the government would have to show a need above and beyond. In the case of airlines, the government doesn't really have to struggle to show how an airplane is a threat to more than just those onboard. A bank, restaurant or other place would be difficult to show the same danger.

Maybe not the same, but serious danger nonetheless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_Chicken_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wah_Mee_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks

In our current political/global/economic climate, it could be argued that any incident like the above would cause far reaching damage.

Do you agree that there are buildings you are required to enter or face a legal penalty? Such as attending jury duty? If called to jury duty i can't avoid the security check. The government is literally compelling me to submit to a search. If i refuse and am denied entry then i could face a legal penalty for not being allowed in. That is where i draw the line. I can avoid scanners at airports by not flying. If i have to be in court and there is a scanner then i'm stuck. Either i go through the scanner or i refuse and if i refuse i'd be subjecting myself to a penalty above and beyond merely not being allowed in.

You said qoute "that makes perfect sense" (regarding me being searched at jury duty) after and before stating your objections to being forced through a scanner/search at a courthouse. Which is it?

Or is your objection just "being forced to go through the nekkid scanner". If so, what's your reasoning? I haven't seen near enough nekkid wimmenz, but the ones I have seen don't look anything like those images. I'd argue a girl in jeans and a t-shirt is more revealing.

 

[donner]

Why do they have to show you the need? What if they show me the need, and I agree with while you don't?

I think the government should always have to show a need to do things. As i've said, i feel it has shown a need in the area of airport security. If you disagree then that is fine. But it's not me whose mind you have to change since i can't change the situation. I'm merely saying why i think it's okay. You can disagree.

I think that if 50 people were shot to death in a chain restaurant in Americas Heartland, it would be a huge threat to our nation. Everything from our economy to our national security would be damaged.

I see the need, so why does it matter if donner does too?

It doesn't matter what i think. Again, i was asked when i'd object and i answered that. If you feel the government is fine to require scanners to get into a restaurant then that is your choice. I'd choose not to eat there, however. Just like i'd choose not to fly if i felt my rights were being violated by the scans and searches there.

Maybe not the same, but serious danger nonetheless.

In our current political/global/economic climate, it could be argued that any incident like the above would cause far reaching damage.

It could be shown to cause problems, yes. Again, i don't dispute that there are dangers with flying.

You said qoute "that makes perfect sense" (regarding me being searched at jury duty) after and before stating your objections to being forced through a scanner/search at a courthouse. Which is it?

I did indeed. And it does make perfect sense to be searched before jury duty. My point was that i don't consider that a violation of privacy. If i did then i would object to the government's actions.

Or is your objection just "being forced to go through the nekkid scanner".

I'm merely answering the question as to where i'd draw the line on government forcing me to give up my right to privacy. I don't have an objection to the 'nekked scanner' as you call it when used at airports since i am not compelled to go through airport security unless i choose to do so. If i choose to go through security then i understand what my choices are. If i chose not to enter the airport then the government would have no recourse against me.

If a scanner was installed in say, a courthouse, where i might be forced to enter or face a penalty for refusal, then i'd take issue.

I am not saying the scanners don't violate my privacy, i'm saying there are instances where we willing give up our right to privacy and that airports are one of those places. Since i can choose to avoid airports then any time i go through the scanner i am doing so willingly. The scanners do violate privacy in my opinion, but I'm saying it's the choice that is important.

If so, what's your reasoning? I haven't seen near enough nekkid wimmenz, but the ones I have seen don't look anything like those images. I'd argue a girl in jeans and a t-shirt is more revealing.

Not sure why you felt the need to include that, as it doesn't add anything to your argument, but whatever.

 

[RidgeHunter]

On phone, excuse brevity.

Felt the need to include it because I don't understand why courthouse searches are acceptable to you but "nekkid scanners" at the courthouse would not be.

 

[MoBoost]

Body scans I don't have problem with - pat down on the other hand, is what you get when you get arrested ...

 

[jbarnett]

 

[cjjtulsa]

That's been debunked on multiple occassions...

Yep - but how many times has it actually been tried in a real world situation (not a lab facsimile)? You willing to volunteer to punch a few .40 caliber holes through the fuselage at 32,000 feet? They're probably right (and maybe it's been done), but I don't want to bet my life on it.

According to this, as long as you don't hit a window you're fine:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/gun-on-plane.htm

Then there's always those pesky things such as avionics, hydraulics, etc. I don't want any bullets flying around any airplane I'm in, thanks.

 

[MoBoost]

Yep - but how many times has it actually been tried in a real world situation (not a lab facsimile)? You willing to volunteer to punch a few .40 caliber holes through the fuselage at 32,000 feet? They're probably right (and maybe it's been done), but I don't want to bet my life on it.

According to this, as long as you don't hit a window you're fine:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/gun-on-plane.htm

Then there's always those pesky things such as avionics, hydraulics, etc. I don't want any bullets flying around any airplane I'm in, thanks.

If someone starts shooting randomly in a mall eventually bullets will hit those pesky things like children and women - no-one wants to be around flying bullets let it be house, car or restaurant.

Most of the times having a gun preemptively stops a situation from escalating, but when the **** hits the fan - I want to be one slinging, not hiding by the fan.