Your opinion on Naked Body Scanning

[ElTigreSantiago]

It really gets on my nerves when people complain about airport security. I would love to see you complain when you or your families flight is taken over by terrorists and they all die.

 

[Joe_Fitzsimmons]

what happens when children have to go through it?
im asking cus the amount of checks you have to go through these days if you want to become a teacher or social worker to prove your not a peadophile would seem stupid when this job would not only allow you to look at naked children but force you.

 

[Julianking93]

Really?

I bet you anything they'll only do this for people who aren't white.

Thankfully, I hate airplanes and never will get on one in my life so I don't have to go through this bullshit.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I work at an airport, I seriously hope the staff won't have to go through one of those every time. I have to go through the security zones upwards of ten times a day! it's such a pain in the arse. Imagine working with people who know exactly how small your bits are.

Apparently though the scanners wouldn't have picked up the latest bomber either.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/body-scanner-wouldnt-have-foiled-syringe-bomber-says-mp-who-worked-on-new-machines.html

alex jones really isn't a reliable source of info, considering most of his stuff comes from the corner of "where" and "the sun don't shine"

he's a fear monger that just tosses as much shit at the wall he can hoping that some of it will stick and then he can legitimize what he's being saying

Spoiler: a whole bunch of let's get the muslim guys

Okay, let me address the elephant in the room, even if it will make me even less popular than usual by doing so.

The big issue is with one paticular, sizable, culture for the most part. Namely that of "The Middle East". In general most of the rest of the enemies of the western world right now don't engage in terrorism. Even the global "bad boys" like Russia and China tend to act in a pretty straightforward fashion by leveraging with their military or economy rather than sending suicide bombers, or insurgent "commandos" to cause problems in other nations. Even when it comes to other poor nations with problems with say the US, Europe, etc.. culturally they tend not to engage in the same behavior.

This is not to say that only Muslims are terrorists, or capable of being terrorists, but simply that this is how things are the most common.

The problem with engaging in religious/cultural/ethnic profiling is of course that we have established moral principles where singling out a specific group is seen as wrong. Despite some rough spots for the most part we have made this work and view it as the correct course of action. I however feel current events over the last decade or so have shown that we were wrong, and that some of the fundemental assumptions inherant in that (ie that the dangerous stereotypes are false or present very little risk... a robbed house or two compared to the oppression of potentially millions of people being a small price) are wrong.

Right now I actually think we should re-consider our position on profiling in response to international events (as opposed to purely domestic ones). I in general have no real problem with "harassing" some Muslim (arabic, black muslim, or whatever though mostly the forum) when your dealing with the lives of hundreds or even thousands of people being lot from a single act. Not only do we have to worry about losing a plane to a bomb like decades ago, but as 9/11 has shown the plane's destruction itself can be a weapon. Even with just a bomb in flight if one was to say set it off during takeoff or landing at the right time a lot of damage could be done to the ground, not to matter timing things specifically for when the plane is flying over an urban area to douse it in debris and shrapnel or whatever.

In general I feel we should basically engage in profiling for mass transit (not just planes) at least as long as the current cultural conflict lasts. It needs to be carefully labeled legally though to prevent it from snowballing into purely domestic use. If this doesn't deal with the problem, then perhaps simply banning Muslims from using mass transit (subways, trains, planes, etc..) might be reasonable, as well as making it more difficult for people to come from The Middle East to the US in general which as "wrong" as it might sound doesn't strike me as being a bad thing when I read about failed terrorist attacks and such (of course stopping someone means far less to the public than a success).

I also think we need to get a lot more militant with our southern border. I've said this before, but I don't see the only issue with Mexico as being illegal immigrants and such. Allegedly a lot of insurgents and such (active terrorists, or just people "preparing", passing info, and other things, mostly the latter) get into the country via Mexio. In general an ethnic arab who acts the right way and picks up the language can "pass" as Mexican or South American at least for long enough. Then they can exploit the same pathways that illegals and such use to get into the US (tunnels under the border, illegal truck runs, etc...) and even find sympathy and assistance on both sides as odd as that might seem. Of course rather than helping Pedro find work to "feed his family" (despite the economic crisis), your helping some dude come in to hook up with "Abdul Bin Allah" (or pick your favorite terrorist sounding name). Oh sure, maybe all he does is print pamphlets or lurk around menacingly, but such people help form the infrastructure that ultimatly creates the suicide bombers and serious terrorists.

Simply my opinion. I do understand the whole arguement about how "if we do this we give into fear by compromising our standards", but let's be honest here... we're talking about stuff like nude body scans being directly at the entire populance. We're ALREADY sacrificing principles of privacy and so on. Frankly if we're going to bother to even consider something like that, we should instead look at specifically going after the group responsible and by the numbers we'll actually wind up infringing on less people (even if we wind up infringing on them to a greater extent).

you really need to learn what profiling is, it's NOT "let's pick out the minority cause they probly did it". profiling when done right targets the most likely subjects.

ie in a white neighbourhood, someone gets robbed and beaten, they will go after white kids. in south central LA, there's a drive by, they go after some black gangs. in the midwest someone gets raped and beaten, they go after a white guy.

it goes by what ever racial groups live in the area and are most likely to commit said crime. so if it's an all black neighbourhood, then they go after the blacks, if it's a white neighbourhood, they go after the white people and so forth.

and as for terrorism, sorry to say but the muslims are NOT the number one group. believe it or not it's ..... WHITE PEOPLE

so quit your racism and go learn something about what you're talking about


as for the topic on hand, frankly those are the least scary of the things the government is doing regarding air travel in the states.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/01/airlines-passenger-privacy001.html

Canada or any other country flying over the states will now have to give the information of everyone on board before they can fly over the country. no matter if it violates the law of that country or not

 

[Ganthrinor]

Next time I fly anywhere, I'm dressing up as a giant penis to go through security.

 

[Nickolai77]

The problem with engaging in religious/cultural/ethnic profiling is of course that we have established moral principles where singling out a specific group is seen as wrong. Despite some rough spots for the most part we have made this work and view it as the correct course of action. I however feel current events over the last decade or so have shown that we were wrong, and that some of the fundemental assumptions inherant in that (ie that the dangerous stereotypes are false or present very little risk... a robbed house or two compared to the oppression of potentially millions of people being a small price) are wrong.

Right now I actually think we should re-consider our position on profiling in response to international events (as opposed to purely domestic ones). I in general have no real problem with "harassing" some Muslim (arabic, black muslim, or whatever though mostly the forum) when your dealing with the lives of hundreds or even thousands of people being lot from a single act. Not only do we have to worry about losing a plane to a bomb like decades ago, but as 9/11 has shown the plane's destruction itself can be a weapon. Even with just a bomb in flight if one was to say set it off during takeoff or landing at the right time a lot of damage could be done to the ground, not to matter timing things specifically for when the plane is flying over an urban area to douse it in debris and shrapnel or whatever.

In general I feel we should basically engage in profiling for mass transit (not just planes) at least as long as the current cultural conflict lasts. It needs to be carefully labeled legally though to prevent it from snowballing into purely domestic use. If this doesn't deal with the problem, then perhaps simply banning Muslims from using mass transit (subways, trains, planes, etc..) might be reasonable, as well as making it more difficult for people to come from The Middle East to the US in general which as "wrong" as it might sound doesn't strike me as being a bad thing when I read about failed terrorist attacks and such (of course stopping someone means far less to the public than a success).

On the other hand, there are a lot of Muslims who want to move into western countries and become peaceful, law abiding and productive citizens of their respective country. The problem of treating all Muslims as terrorists is that it will alienate the vast majority of Muslims who are not terrorists, and due to this alienaton, create more terrorists.

Regarding the use of full body-scans, i think some people have correctly pointed out that it still may be possible to get bomb-material through security due to things like cavities, and ordinary items hidden in hand luggage. Dispite this, i am not against the use of full body scans. Ideally, a computor should be used to detect for any abnormalities on a body before a human looks at these images. We should protect privacy when we can. Of course, in later decades when the terror threat has declined, the use of these scanners should be withdrawn.

As an interesting side note, when i first read about this in the Daily Mail (my parents buy that paper) it suggested that the use of full-body scans could contradict child protection laws in the UK which prohibit the creation of pictures depicting naked children. That made me think, WTF lol?

 

[funguy2121]

It's a digital image, yes? So not the person's actual body?

Pretty much 90% of TSA's post-911 approach has been ineffective bullshit. All it does is cause inconvenience. They need to change their approach.

I do love the idea of instituting racial profiling - which will never fucking happen now that W's out of office - as comedy. It's the perfect solution to an ever-growing problem. We've got a bunch of people within this segment of the world population that's very pissed at us, and some of them want to periodically blow a few of us up. So let's piss them off further when we could be BETTER than those people who want to blow us to kingdom come. Hope that's not too off-topic.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

American Airline security is kind of a giant clusterf*ck right now due to the fact that a terrorist bomber was able to get explosives on board of a U.S flight leaving from Holland to Detroid.

It has been widely regarded that the security measurements taken today at modern airport is not good enough to ensure security.

Some airport to counteract these type of flaws have purchased Body Scanners [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_scan] that are able to display a vague picture of the subject in question naked.

What is your opinion on this?
Some oppose these machines and claim that it violates personal integrity while some others claim that this is the only way of insuring that no explosives get on board of an airplane.

What are your thoughts and ideas regarding naked body scan? Would you have no problems letting someone seeing you naked through a scanner?
Do you think it imposes a threat to personal intergrity?

EDIT: I read that some airports that have Body Scanning allows for passengers that do not wish to be body scanned to be frisked instead.

Well that all depends do I get to choose who frisks me? I'm joking but I don't mind I have nothing to hide under my clothes I mean it's not like anyone is going to jack off to it thats what we have the internet for.

 

[TOGSolid]

If it makes security checkpoints as fast as this, then fuck yeah bring it on.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

alex jones really isn't a reliable source of info, considering most of his stuff comes from the corner of "where" and "the sun don't shine"

That was just the first link that showed up on google, I've never looked at that site before.

How about:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240193/Body-scanner-wouldnt-foiled-syringe-bomber-says-MP-worked-new-machines.html?ITO=1490

The Daily Mail isn't something I'd call fair either but they kind of have rules about lies at least.

 

[T-Bone24]

It's the "doctor" problem. People are embarrassed to reaveal themselves, when the person doesn't really care about it as it's part of their job. I don't mind it at all.

Of course, then there are the people who feel it's infringing our privacy, and I can't really argue with that.

 

[Jadak]

I'm fine with it so long as nobody makes any indication to me that they were doing it. Ever. The last thing I was is a airport security coming up to me going "Sir, we were just reviewing naked pictures of you, and we have a few questions..."

 

[Gaderael]

Here's a little something I saw the other day that all those saying "if it protects us, I have no problem with it."

Spoiler

I don't think we need the Nude Tube Scanner just yet.

 

[Therumancer]

The problem with engaging in religious/cultural/ethnic profiling is of course that we have established moral principles where singling out a specific group is seen as wrong. Despite some rough spots for the most part we have made this work and view it as the correct course of action. I however feel current events over the last decade or so have shown that we were wrong, and that some of the fundemental assumptions inherant in that (ie that the dangerous stereotypes are false or present very little risk... a robbed house or two compared to the oppression of potentially millions of people being a small price) are wrong.

Right now I actually think we should re-consider our position on profiling in response to international events (as opposed to purely domestic ones). I in general have no real problem with "harassing" some Muslim (arabic, black muslim, or whatever though mostly the forum) when your dealing with the lives of hundreds or even thousands of people being lot from a single act. Not only do we have to worry about losing a plane to a bomb like decades ago, but as 9/11 has shown the plane's destruction itself can be a weapon. Even with just a bomb in flight if one was to say set it off during takeoff or landing at the right time a lot of damage could be done to the ground, not to matter timing things specifically for when the plane is flying over an urban area to douse it in debris and shrapnel or whatever.

In general I feel we should basically engage in profiling for mass transit (not just planes) at least as long as the current cultural conflict lasts. It needs to be carefully labeled legally though to prevent it from snowballing into purely domestic use. If this doesn't deal with the problem, then perhaps simply banning Muslims from using mass transit (subways, trains, planes, etc..) might be reasonable, as well as making it more difficult for people to come from The Middle East to the US in general which as "wrong" as it might sound doesn't strike me as being a bad thing when I read about failed terrorist attacks and such (of course stopping someone means far less to the public than a success).

On the other hand, there are a lot of Muslims who want to move into western countries and become peaceful, law abiding and productive citizens of their respective country. The problem of treating all Muslims as terrorists is that it will alienate the vast majority of Muslims who are not terrorists, and due to this alienaton, create more terrorists.

Regarding the use of full body-scans, i think some people have correctly pointed out that it still may be possible to get bomb-material through security due to things like cavities, and ordinary items hidden in hand luggage. Dispite this, i am not against the use of full body scans. Ideally, a computor should be used to detect for any abnormalities on a body before a human looks at these images. We should protect privacy when we can. Of course, in later decades when the terror threat has declined, the use of these scanners should be withdrawn.

As an interesting side note, when i first read about this in the Daily Mail (my parents buy that paper) it suggested that the use of full-body scans could contradict child protection laws in the UK which prohibit the creation of pictures depicting naked children. That made me think, WTF lol?

When it comes to Muslims I will say that your a victim of a common misconception which seems to be promoted by the "peace at any price" crowd. One of the reasons why this is such a messed up situation is that there are no progressive "good guys" by our standards. This is why our attempts to "win the peace" diplomatically and through police actions have failed (and what was going to happen was pretty obvious, I even said so myself early on). The closest thing to a progressive faction was actually the Sunnis and they switched "sides" when the USSR offered them what they thought was a better deal many moons ago.

The thing is that we're fighting a culture. Like every culture not everyone is actively a warrior, but most people support their warriors. This is why when a terrorist fires an RPG or empties an assault rifle at an American patron, a lot of the "civilians" are willing to close ranks around them to impede progress. Sure none of those people are actually terrorists, but they support terrorism. Also the respect it garners from the general populance is why so many are willing to Martyr themselves, since it can bring prosperity to their family. People do not go out and become suicide bombers because it gets some handclapping from a tiny minority.

For obvious reasons Muslims also want to play to American perceptions, nobody is going to tell an American "oh yeah I support terrorism" for obvious reasons. However a lot of them (in The Middle East and abroad) probably login to those various 'terrorist information websites' you hear about. We've had scandals about that in the US when some university professors have been caught running them, and refused to hand over user lists and such.

It's sort of like World War II, not everyone in Germany was a Nazi, but like 99% of the people were Nazi supporters contrary to how people want to present things. This is why in the final days of the way, fighting the "Volkssturm" was such a nasty thing since you literally had unarmed civilians impeding allied troops, and throwing themselves out with a rock and a prayer. This lead to plenty of massacres and "war crimes" of our own as we pretty much killed anyone not in an allied uniform that could be found because it was nessicary. Groups like "The Hitler Youth" did not disappear when it became conveinent. As the guys who won, we get to write the history books, and decide who the war criminals are.

I think our presentation of the idea of a "good war" has hampered us in dealing with reality in the course of this threat.

I generally concede that there are doubtlessly some Muslims out there who would love to come to a Western country, become part of the culture, and live in peace. However I feel they are a tiny minority, rather than being the majority. If it was any other way, we would not be facing this sort of threat. People volunteer to die for god, and kill Americans, because their culture in general lionizes the behavior.

At any rate, as I said the first step in my opinion should be to allow profiling. Only if that does not work would we start preventing Muslims from using mass transit.

Basically I think it's wrong to make policy based on the existance of a harmless minority. Okay, sure, this might not be fair to a few people, but it's the right thing to do by the numbers.

As far as the idea of such policing "inspiring more terrorism" that's ridiculous. It's basically saying we should let them blow stuff up, for fear that they will blow more stuff up. What's more if these guys are so unstable that they could turn from "progressive" to a rabid bombing murderer because someone applies a bit of common sense with transit security (and they know the reasons)... well I'm sorry but that guy is unstable to begin with. It's like refusing the apply the law to anyone in general because of the possibility that any given person might start killing people. If a group of people are that touchy, then it is not unreasonable to treat them like the unstable wild animals that they effectively are.

If things got to the point of a full transit ban, it would be the result of things happening. As things stand now I think it's not unreasonable to focus security increases on the problem group, rather than subjecting everyone to them.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

do it.

 

[SnipErlite]

Minor embarrassment or horrible fiery death. Your call.