Your opinion on Naked Body Scanning
- Thread starter CyberAkuma
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Is it wrong to think that's kinda hot. If it is, pretend I didn't say it. I'd probably have a bit of a problem with it though, I was stopped at an airport to and from Florida when I went there, and that pissed me off. So I'm sure getting a nude scan would piss me off even more.
Why don't we just arm the flight attendents with polearms and taserchucks and the stun batons from HL2?
I think we'll be safe then.
I think we'll be safe then.
Should be noted that dogs would probably do a better job at a fraction of the cost.
Should be noted that terrorists generally have an IQ above 40 and can get around this easily. "Slippery slope" is not a fallacy here unless you can tell me exactly where the line on invasiveness will be permanently drawn. Because I guarantee you that wherever you draw that line, terrorists will cross it. Still, you must draw it. I refer you to the constitutional amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.
Should be noted that you are much, much more likely to die in a car crash, yet I bet none of these "pro-safety" people would like to be told they have to wear helmets while driving, or that they can never drink again because some people who drink become drunk drivers and kill more people than terrorists.
Should be established what you will do with people who refuse to go along with this. "Don't fly" is a hypocritical solution. Planes can't serve peanuts because a few people have peanut allergies. Well, some people have very good, proven reasons for being afraid of invasive, uncontrolled authorities. Ever had someone lie about you to airport security? It's a great way to get back at your enemies if you have absolutely no ethical standards.
Yes, in fact, I am okay with a 1 in a million chance of being blown up. At least it would be an interesting death. This is authoritarian, and in my opinion, the lives of willing citizens of an authoritarian state have somewhat less real value than the lives of free people. If you think I'm talking about you, deal with it; you were going to be pissed off by this post no matter what. If you think that's racist, fine, go ahead and think that. But I doubt citizens of full-fledged police states are as worried about 1-in-a-million risks as Americans are. Physical security is over-valued in the US, and the terrorists know it. They're not trying to physically destroy us; they know they can't. They're trying to destroy our power, and our power is based on mutual trust of other civilians and a willingness to take reasonable risks. That's definitely true of the economy and I say it's true politically, too. If you sacrifice liberty and dignity for a 0.0001% unproven, temporary improvement in physical security, what exactly are you protecting?
Should be noted that terrorists generally have an IQ above 40 and can get around this easily. "Slippery slope" is not a fallacy here unless you can tell me exactly where the line on invasiveness will be permanently drawn. Because I guarantee you that wherever you draw that line, terrorists will cross it. Still, you must draw it. I refer you to the constitutional amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.
Should be noted that you are much, much more likely to die in a car crash, yet I bet none of these "pro-safety" people would like to be told they have to wear helmets while driving, or that they can never drink again because some people who drink become drunk drivers and kill more people than terrorists.
Should be established what you will do with people who refuse to go along with this. "Don't fly" is a hypocritical solution. Planes can't serve peanuts because a few people have peanut allergies. Well, some people have very good, proven reasons for being afraid of invasive, uncontrolled authorities. Ever had someone lie about you to airport security? It's a great way to get back at your enemies if you have absolutely no ethical standards.
Yes, in fact, I am okay with a 1 in a million chance of being blown up. At least it would be an interesting death. This is authoritarian, and in my opinion, the lives of willing citizens of an authoritarian state have somewhat less real value than the lives of free people. If you think I'm talking about you, deal with it; you were going to be pissed off by this post no matter what. If you think that's racist, fine, go ahead and think that. But I doubt citizens of full-fledged police states are as worried about 1-in-a-million risks as Americans are. Physical security is over-valued in the US, and the terrorists know it. They're not trying to physically destroy us; they know they can't. They're trying to destroy our power, and our power is based on mutual trust of other civilians and a willingness to take reasonable risks. That's definitely true of the economy and I say it's true politically, too. If you sacrifice liberty and dignity for a 0.0001% unproven, temporary improvement in physical security, what exactly are you protecting?
Well, we are already being frisked by big security guards, so to be honest, I think this would be a step up, except for the fact that they will just go on ahead and say the machine doesn't work anyways, and have big ol' Keith over there pat you down, just for shits and giggles.
Either way, you give people power, and they WILL abuse it.
Either way, you give people power, and they WILL abuse it.
If they see it as a necessary invasion of privacy... well, so be it. I don't really have an opinion either way as to how necessary it is. I'm okay with it as long as they treat it as, well a necessary *invasion of privacy*. What I mean by that is that not just any loser can use the scanners or information from them, but people who have some sense of professionalism about what they do.
@AverageJoe, et al.
It is a question of values. I think the fact that you are scared about something that has a one in a million chance of happening to you is ridiculous, especially since these scanners WILL NOT HELP (see all the ways that other posters have listed to get around them, and invent a few of your own). I don't feel my fear of the security and their so-called professionalism is irrational, because I've been on their bad side because someone decided to give them false information about me and they opted not to verify it. Incidentally I was a minor at the time, but they don't give a shit about stuff like that. To me it is much more important to ensure that people we WILL interact with do not abuse us, than to get insanely worried about rare lone freaks.
It is a question of values. I think the fact that you are scared about something that has a one in a million chance of happening to you is ridiculous, especially since these scanners WILL NOT HELP (see all the ways that other posters have listed to get around them, and invent a few of your own). I don't feel my fear of the security and their so-called professionalism is irrational, because I've been on their bad side because someone decided to give them false information about me and they opted not to verify it. Incidentally I was a minor at the time, but they don't give a shit about stuff like that. To me it is much more important to ensure that people we WILL interact with do not abuse us, than to get insanely worried about rare lone freaks.
AverageJoe said:
and this is ignorance at its best.x0ny said:
'Let me take nude pictures of you, it will increase your safty.'
my safty from what?
'i don't know... but it will make you more safe. trust me.'
infact, it can easily be argued that this reduces the safty you have on an airplane as it gives a false sense of security while multipule weapons, chemicals, and contraban can be smuggled past it extreamly easily.
you are giving up your dignity, your security, and your freedoms...
and what do you gain?
nothing.
