| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/22/2010 01:02:27 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Are we losing rights? Sure, we are. But, it's not entirely the governments fault - they have always been overzealous. Americans are victims of our own cowardice. We've not only fallen to fear of terrorists, but we have no "rebels" to challenge our own government. |
The American people haven't been screaming and yelling for the TSA to make flying safer. The government is just assuming this is what we want.
and we do have rebels, this is a big deal right now and and lots of people are rebelling against the system. |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 01:33:46 PM · #52 |
| We can not even speak on the phone with dignity, someone may be listening. why are governments trying to focus our eyes and minds on issues of security, what is really about to happen? |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 01:43:30 PM · #53 |
Yeah, once at the airport, if you are selected for the naked scanner your options are:
1. go through the naked scanner
2. get felt up
3. get arrested and face a $11,000 fine
and, if you take option 1 and they think you fail the naked scanner (read a story about someone having blurry junk and having to get felt up too.) they feel you up too.
Isn't the plan to eventually have everyone go through the naked scanner?
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 03:12:38 PM · #54 |
I'm trying to figure out all the opposition to the body scanner.
"Flying with dignity" is an illusion. We're already herded like cattle from the check-in lines, through security (we take out shoes off and let everyone know what type of laptop we carry) and upon boarding - by status and then row #. We're stacked on top of each other in too-small seats which are rarely cleaned and are made to crawl over others or ask them to clear the way when we need to move. Do you think no one knows where/what you're doing when you walk to the back of the plane?
We're on-camera the moment we step into an airport. We are already required to walk through a metal detector. The images from these scanners are not tagged by name/ssn/passport, nor could anyone tell with any certainty, after the fact, that "that image is me". The paranoia that someone "could" do something with an x-ray of "you" (despite the thousands of other going ahead and behind you) seems overly reactionary and illogical.
Yes, security procedures are an annoyance, but I'll have a much better flight knowing the government/airport/airlines have done all they can, to the best of their ability, to make my flight a safe one.
Go through the scanner, avoid the body rub, go sit and wait to be herded onto the plane.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 03:25:47 PM · #55 |
| What I keep waiting to see is a group that is vocal about enjoying the pat-downs, hell, there are plenty of folks who'll pay good money to have anyone touch their genitalia! |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 03:37:41 PM · #56 |
| Next time I will arrive butt naked, just to spite then and not give them any reason to scan me. |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 03:41:48 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
I'm trying to figure out all the opposition to the body scanner.
|
It's the radiation exposure. |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 03:55:46 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by signal2noise:
I'm trying to figure out all the opposition to the body scanner.
|
It's the radiation exposure. |
Plus the fact that, pre-scanner, we seemed to be doing fine with just metal detector, and now if you refuse to be irradiated, you MUST agree to a full-body, hands-on search. It's just plain INVASIVE, it's just going too far. I don't believe for one second that this is increasing our security to any measurable extent. So far, without exception, every single instance of someone being singled out for further inspection by metal detectors and security personnel has proven to be a false positive. All this increased "security" hasn't actually CAUGHT anybody, just inconvenienced EVERYBODY.
Granted, that one of the purposes of tight security is to keep terrorists from even attempting a boarding, but that part seemed to be working fine BEFORE the scanners.
The bureaucracy is built on fear. It feeds on fear. It requires fear to survive. The people in POWER thrive on our fear. Our entire system of "government" perpetuates itself by fear-mongering. It's gone beyond ridiculous, beyond ludicrous, into unexplored and yet-to-be-named territory.
Don't get me started... It makes no sense at all.
R. |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:13:56 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by signal2noise:
I'm trying to figure out all the opposition to the body scanner.
|
It's the radiation exposure. |
Plus the fact that, pre-scanner, we seemed to be doing fine with just metal detector, and now if you refuse to be irradiated, you MUST agree to a full-body, hands-on search. It's just plain INVASIVE, it's just going too far. I don't believe for one second that this is increasing our security to any measurable extent. So far, without exception, every single instance of someone being singled out for further inspection by metal detectors and security personnel has proven to be a false positive. All this increased "security" hasn't actually CAUGHT anybody, just inconvenienced EVERYBODY.
Granted, that one of the purposes of tight security is to keep terrorists from even attempting a boarding, but that part seemed to be working fine BEFORE the scanners.
The bureaucracy is built on fear. It feeds on fear. It requires fear to survive. The people in POWER thrive on our fear. Our entire system of "government" perpetuates itself by fear-mongering. It's gone beyond ridiculous, beyond ludicrous, into unexplored and yet-to-be-named territory.
Don't get me started... It makes no sense at all.
R. |
According to the manufacturers, the millimeter-wave scanner produces less radiation than a cell phone, and the backscatter scanner produces less radiation than you get from sitting on a plane for two minutes.
Nevertheless, the government has a lot of fire power, and politicians are going to do what they want. They have their own planes.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:17:05 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by signal2noise:
I'm trying to figure out all the opposition to the body scanner.
|
It's the radiation exposure. |
Cell phones, laptops, metal detectors, wireless signals, check-in station, security hand wands, monitors, motion detector doors. We're bombarded w/ radiation continually - it's just another source. |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:26:23 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
According to the manufacturers ... |
Here's a case where I agree with Reagan: trust but verify.
We have no evidence that the scanners in actual use produce only what the manufacturers claim under test conditions.
If there's even a one in a million chance that any particular exposure would result in a new case of cancer, and there are about 750 million passengers (in the US alone) yearly, that sounds like 750 cases of cancer caused by this procedure every year -- I supposed they will just be considered collateral damage ...
Of course the agents who staff the machines are probably getting huge exposure, but we'll never know since they are not provided with dosimeters ... |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:27:32 PM · #62 |
I readily concede that the amount of radiation from the backscatter machine may well be insignificant in the overall scheme of things. IN particular, I think nowhere NEAR enough attention is being paid to the health issues involved with constant use of cell phones.
But I don't think that's the point. I think the point is, people have been pushed too far, and they are lashing back. I think we're beginning to resemble a fascist state a little too strongly for my tastes, and for a lot of peoples' tastes. I don't believe that all things are justified in the name of 'security". I think I need protecting from my own government more than i do from terrorists, frankly.
R. |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:31:12 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
What I keep waiting to see is a group that is vocal about enjoying the pat-downs, hell, there are plenty of folks who'll pay good money to have anyone touch their genitalia! |
Guess you missed my post about asking for a happy ending?
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:34:19 PM · #64 |
Beg pardon if this youtube video has been posted before:
A message from Transport Canada
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:38:40 PM · #65 |
| Dang, YouTube has taken it down, but did anybody catch the SNL TSA sketch? Hilarious! |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:39:44 PM · #66 |
Heh, gotta love Mercer. :-D
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:41:23 PM · #67 |
While I can fully appreciate people's frustrations, I really cannot get bent out of shape over the current state of affairs.
Assuming we dismantled all security that is deemed an inconvenience to the travellers, would we all feel safe, and is it feasible that we could be the target of terrorists...My money says it is quite conceivable.
I would wager a good sum of money that people's reaction would be quite different if per chance a few planes fell out of the skies and that those same "brainless" bureaucrats would be chastized for nonfeasance.
Can't win for losing.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:53:05 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I would wager a good sum of money that people's reaction would be quite different if per chance a few planes fell out of the skies and that those same "brainless" bureaucrats would be chastized for nonfeasance.
Can't win for losing.
Ray |
Ray, there has to be a balance. They've gone too far. This isn't the way a free people with pride in themselves carries on their lives. It's like we're a bunch of cattle being pushed around by our leaders. Who, incidentally, get escorted around these security bottlenecks.
R. |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 04:57:03 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Assuming we dismantled all security that is deemed an inconvenience to the travellers, would we all feel safe, and is it feasible that we could be the target of terrorists...My money says it is quite conceivable. |
I don't think anyone is asking to remove everything? Just the newly added virtual strip search and enhanced rub down. I'm okay with the metal detectors and the liquid ban seems logical and isn't that hard to deal with.
I had no problem what so ever with the TSA until I heard a woman explain how her two young daughters were given a rub down, almost by a male until she demanded a female come do it. |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 05:36:02 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Couldn't an electronic sniffer or a dog pick up anything they can find with their see through machines and feel ups (other then maybe a plastic knife), and probably more? Maybe the dog trainers or sniffer makers need to offer Janet a cushy job when she leaves office? |
Personally, I vote for more sniffer dogs. Effective, cheap, reliable, green.
They will catch explosives, drugs, YOU NAME IT, at about 100 paces.
Not to mention profiling. Look at how Israel runs the airports. DING, DING, DING!!! In a Middle Eastern area, Is it profiling by going on "what they look like, dress like, and skin color," when the vast majority of travelers look like the personnel/screeners/police? It is this American political correctness that makes using scanners "necessary."
But, some gubment official is not making BANK on the dogs! Follow the money! Find who's invested in it, and who is pushing these and you will find the reasons. MONEY, MONEY, MAAAAAAAHHNEY! MONEY!
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 05:37:26 PM · #71 |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 05:50:30 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
But, some gubment official is not making BANK on the dogs! Follow the money! Find who's invested in it, and who is pushing these and you will find the reasons. MONEY, MONEY, MAAAAAAAHHNEY! MONEY! |
You've nailed the entire reason these are being introduced.... This is a huge profit for someone, and I'm betting the kickbacks aren't insignificant either.
This is one of the problems with legislation, if you've got enough $$ you can legislate stupid rules that will make money..
Mandatory insurance is a great example of this, as are ignition interlocks... Neither one really works as well as other solutions could, but these make money... |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 06:59:30 PM · #73 |
Okay, I'm not gettin'g this thread at all.
Here's a Fly With Dignity!
|
|
|
|
11/22/2010 08:50:36 PM · #74 |
So if you owned an airline, what would be your solution? Obviously you want to keep your airplanes intact and your passengers happy... what would you propose?
I vote for a "boom room". Everyone has to go through the metal detector (guns + thin metal tubes at high altitudes = not good), then they have to go through the boom room. In the boom room, any explosives on your person will be detonated. Families traveling together can go through together. Whole groups traveling together can go through together. If you trust the ten people in front of you - go with them. If not, wait and go on your own.
Couple of drawbacks - it would not be a fun job to clean the boom room after a detonation; and I'm not sure of the technology. But sounds effective, yes?
I do remember the days when there were no detectors of any kind, no checking of IDs, no nothing. Everyone could wander freely in an airport. You didn't need a ticket to be there. You could meet your incoming passengers at their gates. All very cool. Until a couple of planes took unscheduled trips to Cuba. Back to that gun + thin metal tubes at high altitude = not good thing.
Anyway, you're the CEO of Southwest - what's your solution? |
|
|
|
11/22/2010 09:23:38 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Personally, I vote for more sniffer dogs. Effective, cheap, reliable, green.
They will catch explosives, drugs, YOU NAME IT, at about 100 paces.
Not to mention profiling. Look at how Israel runs the airports. DING, DING, DING!!! In a Middle Eastern area, Is it profiling by going on "what they look like, dress like, and skin color," when the vast majority of travelers look like the personnel/screeners/police? It is this American political correctness that makes using scanners "necessary."
! |
true, my sister got married in st thomas, she had some sparklers sent to the island in advance but she forgot to send matches, she thought she would try to get quite a few books through in her checked bag.
The dogs sniffed them out and they were only matches.
Message edited by author 2010-11-22 21:24:05. |
|
