Full body scans and pat downs: Do they cross the line?

[Miroku2235]

If they feel the need to search everyone to make sure that this doesn't happen, including searching me, then I'm fine with it. Oh sure, I'll be a little embarassed or uncomfortable with another guy frisking me, but you know what? I'd grow the fuck up and go on with my day, not have some kind of insecure, homophobic knee jerk reaction that some people in this thread have exhibited.

Yes, I'm clearly insecure and homophobic because I want people to respect my privacy, how did you come to that insulting and immature conclusion?[/quote]

If you have that big of a reaction to a SECURITY GUARD helping to enforce SECURITY by going through someone's bag or checking their clothes for a potential SECURITY THREAT, then perhaps you should just stick to driving, walking, or taking the bus/train.

 

[Svoboda4zizn]

While I understand that some of you have no problem with the back-scatter x-ray machine that is operated by a TSA employee with a mere equivalency degree (A GED), and a couple of you don't mind getting groped for your "safety" the real issue here is that the scanners are potentially dangerous! Our own CDC (Center for Disease Control) says that the scanners have not been properly tested to ensure that are in fact safe, I might dismiss this to bureaucratic back log if the TSA had published the results of its own internal testing. This is made more strange when after the testing the TSA "updated" its handbook forbidding all TSA personnel from wearing Dosimeters (a cheap and effective safety device that is used in many places where radiation exposure can occur due to the instrumentation being operated).

IMO the purpose of the "pat down" is to encourage submission to the scanners, and the TSA employees are not police they are rent-a-cops period they have no special privileges and the Airlines can not violate your rights anymore than your bank can!
I will link to the CDC report and a UCSF letter concerning the scanners.
/inforant

CDC report [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2003-0206-3067.pdf]
UCSF news article [http://news.ucsf.edu/news-briefs/details/ucsf-scientists-speak-out-against-airport-full-body-scans/]
UCSF letter [http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf]
or here if npr bugs out on you
UCSF letter Google doc [http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:RpteglBatgcJ:www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf+ucsf+letter+of+concern&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi67LRsaEOQep8bd1s-23ZwuN9-J9DC-TfW0bhWurDD_NJHKdhywjLiU0gObaxcIxMgOE9dqVDK7uifQ3AJh5SN97T0qKlt9ZMJlX1W8PFYjti-bRXfcldJZ_qXOvM5lmK2LfCd&sig=AHIEtbTJQVimysgOLWVfR2bumlLHqivE3g]

 

[Freeze_L]

I don't think it's going to far. If it gets results, keep it in place.

Little to none of the "security" crap put in place through the TSA gets any results or even makes sense. Not only should it not be kept in place, it shouldn't exist in the first place. As an added bonus, if you refuse both the scan and the groping session, not only are you not allowed on the plane (stupid, but at least vaguely justifiable in the context of their other rules), it's treated as an admission of guilt, so instead of just being able to leave and go home, you can be arrested and fined up to $10000. Awesome.

I think if you don't like full body pat downs, you shouldn't give them a reason to give you one.

Good thing that works so well to prevent them from randomly selecting you and doing it anyway even if you don't seem suspicious...

Edit: Also, the number of people who are fine with all of this or justifying or encouraging it is depressing. Hopefully someone else will stick up for your rights for you so you might still have any left next time you need them...

Sir you have given me hope in the world yet again, i always feel like i am the only person who makes these points.

Full body scans, that makes a little bit of sense and is not an immense violation of privacy. Groping you is.(period) This is extreme and ridiculous the same results are achieved with the scanner anyways, they are violating our civil rights in the name of security! It may seem small now but look a bit further down the road, its not pretty. It is a chain reaction if you can justify a small breach of freedom for security nothing stops you from implementing larger and larger "Safety Measures" until we are living in 1984.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Ben Franklin

We pride ourselves on our freedom and individuality yet we so willingly give ourselves up and become sheep.

 

[Chamale]

I think if you don't like full body pat downs, you shouldn't give them a reason to give you one. Be prepared--make sure you know what's in your pockets and try not to wear clothes that make you look like you could be hiding C4 canisters, or whatever those crazy bombers are using these days.

Also, make sure that your skin is white, that you can avoid random checks, and that you can keep from sneezing at the wrong moment.



My primary concern about this security is that it makes us less safe. While it would be hard to smuggle a good bomb past 2002 security, our current security system makes us more vulnerable to terrorists than ever. Think of how easily suicide bombers kill crowds of people in Iraq. The main way to protect against this is to avoid having crowds. I'll put that in bold, in short short words so John Pistole can understand it:

Lots of folks die when bad guys use bombs in crowds. The American security system creates a delusion of security, while the hundreds of people standing in line provide a tempting target. Anyone with a high school diploma could combine household chemicals to kill everyone in one of those lines.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I give this quote out on stickers. We put the stickers on our provincially-issued mandatory IDs that we're required to wear to attend school.

 

[individual11]

Yeah, Population Control Officers, Suppression Squads, Holographics, Prozium, THX1138, Substance D, 'Fire Men', Omni Consumer Products, Pre-Crime Units, RFID implants, etc. suddenly don't seem so fanciful and fantastic, any more, do they?

For Fuck's Sake, '1984' was a Warning, Not A Goddamn Blueprint!

 

[Miroku2235]

Ben Franklin probably meant giving up your literal freedom and basic human rights for safety, not giving up a small amount of privacy and getting a bit red-cheeked from embarassment. The security at the gates has to be as strict as it is because if the threat gets past it and onto the plane, then the plane is essentially fucked. It is 35000 feet in the air and nothing can stop the threat now once it is put into motion.

I mean come on people, a plane is essentially a missile full of passengers. Full of alcohol, fuel, and flammable materials, let alone the shrapnel that's flung around when it crashes/explodes. To stop crazy folks from getting onto a plane and turning it into a literal missile is the reason these strict rules are in place, and personally I'm thankful for them.

I do agree on having better trained security agents though. Use ex-military, use ex-police, or at least have some kind of police-like academy a person can go to in order to be trained properly.

 

[Blind Sight]

If you have that big of a reaction to a SECURITY GUARD helping to enforce SECURITY by going through someone's bag or checking their clothes for a potential SECURITY THREAT, then perhaps you should just stick to driving, walking, or taking the bus/train.

You didn't answer my question, how am I being insecure and homophobic? EXPLAIN your logic, don't just make random offense statements and expect to get away with it.

Ben Franklin probably meant giving up your literal freedom and basic human rights for safety, not giving up a small amount of privacy and getting a bit red-cheeked from embarassment. The security at the gates has to be as strict as it is because if the threat gets past it and onto the plane, then the plane is essentially fucked. It is 35000 feet in the air and nothing can stop the threat now once it is put into motion.

I mean come on people, a plane is essentially a missile full of passengers. Full of alcohol, fuel, and flammable materials, let alone the shrapnel that's flung around when it crashes/explodes. To stop crazy folks from getting onto a plane and turning it into a literal missile is the reason these strict rules are in place, and personally I'm thankful for them.

I do agree on having better trained security agents though. Use ex-military, use ex-police, or at least have some kind of police-like academy a person can go to in order to be trained properly.

So, as I asked the other person I was discussing this with on the thread, would you be open to having a full anal cavity search everytime you got on a plane? It's for security, remember.

 

[sky14kemea]

I once had a sort of pat-down on the way to Germany.
She grabbed my butt.... I felt violated.

So yeeeah, if they do this in American airports, I'm going to be trying to avoid them for as long as I physically can.

Hell, if I need to go to America, I'll go by boat to avoid the pat-down. D: It's grody!

 

[Yureina]

I've already decided that I won't be flying anywhere until they get rid of this stuff. I really don't need to fly anywhere though, so this isn't exactly a problem for me in that sense. Still... that's really obnoxious. I already have enough problems with people touching me as is even in not-naughty places. The idea of a stranger doing that...

No, I won't be flying anywhere. I'll just drive where I want to go.

 

[Tohron]

They'll complain, right up until the day that they or someone they care about is on a hijacked flight and die...

Plane crashes happen - if we do full body scans, intelligent terrorists will just slip something in the luggage (which continues to recieve only basic scanning), and the stupid ones will get caught much earlier when they begin acting suspiciously. Nothing can make us perfectly safe, but the fact is that right now, the average American's chances of dying in a terrorist attack are lower then the odds of getting struck by lightning... twice.

Airplanes are much safer then cars, but the government doesn't put cops at every major intersection to administer Breathalyzer tests to all drivers. This is all just theater - any terrorist worth taking seriously will bypass these stupid tests, and meanwhile thousands of people are having their privacy violated for nothing.

And people like you let them by throwing around attacks without doing a little reality-check.

 

[mjc0961]

Body scans would be fine by me, but keep your hands to yourself. It's called "innocent until proven guilty" and another term that I can't recall right now. But basically the police can't run around and pat random people down on the off-chance that they MIGHT be carrying a weapon, and the airports shouldn't be able to either.

If my choices are find another way to travel or get felt up for no reason, I'll find another way to travel kthx.

 

[internetzealot1]

I'll be sure to get a boner the next time I pass through airport security. If they want to search me, then bring it on. Airports are getting so utlitarian lately that they might as well go ahead and tattoo barcodes onto our arms.

BTW, why the sudden increase in security? Its not like we've had any successful plane-jackings since 9/11. Can't they just hire more air marshals.

 

[Ertol]

Maybe it will be a little awkward, but really, I'm willing to have some random stranger pat my junk for half a second if it means less people trying to blow up my airplane.

 

[jpoon]

I would take the body pat down rather than the full body scan. Getting blasted with some crazy radiation of some sort just isn't my cup of tea.

 

[Miroku2235]

You know, people here are right. We shouldn't have body checks or scans, I mean terrorists will still find a way through right?

While we're at it though, let's just take out all the security period. No more luggage scans, no more metal detectors, nothing. That's invading my privacy in the slightest bit and I'm offended by it.

I mean, if a terrorist was going to get on that plane anyways, he would find a way. Heaven help us if we tried to maybe impede them a bit, you know, try and save lives and junk.

 

[Julianking93]

Eh. I don't really care, honestly.

If it keeps someone from killing me on the plane, they can do whatever they want to me...

...that doesn't sound right <<

 

[Tohron]

BTW, why the sudden increase in security? Its not like we've had any successful plane-jackings since 9/11.

If people aren't kept on edge and afraid, people might start to wonder why we're spending hundreds of billions on private security contractors to sort through millions of e-mails a day without any sort of warrant and churn out redundant reports that their superiors only skim while real security threats often get overlooked. The people running the companies are getting rich, the congressmen who support them get reliable campaign contributions, and the media who report on crisis after crisis get more views.

The only people who get screwed are the taxpayers funding all this and anyone whose private information could be used for unsavory purposes (and there have been cases of abuse).

 

[InsanityBaronOfAtrocity]

I don't mind if he grabs my balls. If it prevents a bomb from going off and saves even one life it was worth it. It's only a dick.

 

[Ekibiogami]

The scanners I'm fine with. The pat downs I'm not. I don't like people touching me. Its the reason I don't fly coach.
And if you look at the scans they are little Blurs. I'm more worried about the radiation than the blurry image of my junk on screen.

 

[Seitou]

Why is it that 85% of the responses in favour of body scanning and patting downs are all jumping immediately to "IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS THEN THE TERRORISTS WILL JUST GET ON THROUGH WITH NO TROUBLE AT ALL!" Only one guy has made a good point, which would be the composite material blade that metal detectors wouldn't notice (mostly). (Thanks for that by the way, an actually logical point is much appreciated even if it is for the other side of the argument ) No doubt this will be completely ignored like every other post every other person has made on the subject but here goes.

Some small amount of privacy does have to be given up in the airports on occasion, bag searches, sniffer dogs and the like. Fine fair enough, but a persons right to decide who /can and can not touch their body is not something that is okay to pass over/. I can't believe this even needs to be said, let alone repeated a dozen times. And calling anyone who finds that situation intolerable either homophobic, insecure or just plain idiotic is ignorant to the extreme.