Your opinion on Naked Body Scanning

[tmujir955]

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.

OH NOES!

WE NEED TO BLOCK THE SKY AND PREVENT LIGHTNING!

 

[The Random One]

AAAAAAAAARGH

That thing doesn't display people naked, it displays what people would look like if they were the villains of The Ring!

 

[mykalwane]

Simple thing, if you don't like it don't fly. That is the only thing that really maters, since that is the only way they will listen. If they see they aren't making money they will change things. The dollar is the only thing that matters, so make your opinion with the dollars you spend.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Here's the thing.

The English have the most information stored about them than any other country in the World.

They also have one of the worst security systems for holding that data. And one of the most corruptable offices that do store that data. (MP Expenses scandals? Sex Scandals? Cash for Questions scandals?)

Now, even if we go as far as to trust them taking photos of the image of our bodies...Who wants to bet they won't end up somewhere where we don't want them to? The Data Protection Act alone requires that we are able to access these photos at any time as long as they're not being used in a criminal investigation against us.

Ok. Ok. Maybe that's just a little paranoid, but...

If you're the guy operating that machine and say...Britney Spears walks through it, and you have a mate who works at the News of the World willing to pay £10,000 for those images...

See where I'm going?

Now, given that a certain airplane was taking hostage and flown into a building by five guys with knives...Are you really willing to give up your privacy just to protect you against the fear that something like this might happen somewhere near you?


I mean, we can never be too careful, can we?

 

[tmujir955]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaquille_O'Neal#Personal_life

Do you seriously think you can prevent Shaq from getting on a plane if he wants to?

 

[Wolfy4226]

As long as it's not an anal probe. o3o

 

[ljd184]

what they have they do is profiling as in read people passport in front of them as see their reached not to every body just to the people who are suspicious

 

[teisjm]

Airport security, meet envy.

 

[Earthmonger]

My mother and sister have asked me several times when I'm coming back to the States for a visit. I keep telling them, "When I don't have to fly." I hate flying. And this US security BS is one more reason to completely avoid returning.

 

[Neurowaste]

Hell, I got nothing to hide, it's allll pride, scan away. I fly a lot, so I reckon these people will have quite a gallery of me and all my glory.

 

[Therumancer]

Well that doesn't look anywhere near as bad as the British tabloids play it up to be. But this IS from the people who revealed "THE TRUTH" and what happened to Freddie Starr's pets.

I'm all for it if it stops shoebombers from fucking up my early flight breakfast.

Still, I can't stop smiling when I think of how ridiculous these terrorist plots are getting. Its like a human bomber version of Chicken Run

On top of that we pretty much put "The Taliban" in power and ignored their excesses for years (all the horror stories you heard didn't just start happening). They were our allies against the USSR, and we pretty much equipped and trained them.

Glad to hear someone else knows. This was the most hilariously sad thing I ever learned in history class.

It's actually common knowledge. The done the same with the IRA. Thats why I burst out laughing when the Yanks screamed for blood when the Lockerbie Bomber was released; they fund terrorism yet complain when they decide to go it alone?

Us yankees (and I am actually, literally a yankee being from Connecticut!) don't fund terrorism like that. Basically what happened was we had the USSR trying to establish a foothold into that region of The Middle East and started a civil war in Afghanistan at the time. The resistance to the Russians coming in basically asked us for help, and presented themselves as a progressive faction that were opposed to communism and such. As a result we provided weapons and training to turn them into an army to fight the Russian military. Eventually the USSR was forced to pull out, and their allies were pretty much pushed back to a very small area by our allies who took over the country.

The Taliban was pretty much lying about being progressive. While I was very young I remember pictures of the war from magazines and such with little kids my age posing with RPGs, and learning in school (very briefly) about how people there wanted nothing more than to be able to go to school and so on. Well all of that was lies and pretty much as soon as the Russians pulled out and we left them to their own devices (as allies) they proceeded to start going with all that Sharia stuff and did worse things in the region than the guys we replaced with them did (who were not nice to begin with).

In general we ignored this because they were our allies, and we wanted to maintain good relations. We kind of hoped things would settle down on their own. This is one of the reasons why before we invaded we bothered to simply ASK The Taliban and leaders like Mullah Omar to help us with Bin Ladin. After all we gave them that whole bloody country, and due to our alliance pretty much kept them off the UN Human Rights sh@t list as much a we could (right or wrong).

One of the reasons why I am so judgemental about the region in general is that I don't feel we can trust these groups. It's not just Afghanistan and recent events. You look at the whole Iran/Contra Oliver North thing, building up Saddam as an ally specifically so we wouldn't HAVE to upset the beehive in the region by coming in as foreign "infidel" invaders, and other things. Not to mention the way our alliance with the Saudis usually works out. Every time we attempt to help factions in the region that are supposed to be progressive, we can't even
expect gratitude. Alliances only last as long as WE give them aid.

Now yes, the US *HAS* created terrorist groups and such in the region, as has the USSR (programs established by Russian trainers during The Cold War). But in our defense in doing so we didn't build them AS terrorist groups, but largely as a result of diplomatic efforts and trying to earn trust in the region and helping what we thought were progressive factions do their thing in the region.

In a lot of my posts I'm so bitter and cynical, because I don't trust anyone down there anymore. Jordan *might* have been an exception before a recent power transition. Kuwaite is our "buddies" but only because we helped them with an invasion not too terribly long ago and our prescence has never entirely left the region for one reason or another.

Whenever I hear about this "winning the peace" stuff and "training the Iraqis and members of the Northern aliiance to police themselves when we're gone" all I can do is feel my stomach rumble as I think "wait, haven't we already DONE this, with some of the same guys in fact...". When we pull out of the region I expect within 10-20 years (probably much sooner) if something amazing doesn't happen for us to basically wind up dealing with the same guys we're creating right now as our newest enemy in the region.


"By jove, Iraq's remaining military was insufficient to give us pause with all their underperforming Russian tanks and training programs (that contributed to the collapse of the USSR when they saw how good we were in comparison during Desert Storm). Let's go in train them even better, given them a better support infrastructure than they ever had before, and then leave. Obviously if we label them 'peacekeepers' that will mean nothing bad could possibly happen as a result...."

But umm, yeah... the US can be accused of being too quick to lead with diplomacy and trust and then having people turn around with the weapons and stuff we give them and causing problems. Taliban, Iraq, and places all over the world.

 

[Danzaivar]

Less invasive than having them rub you up and wave a metal detector around you, I like it.

 

[The Austin]

No one gets to see my junk for free!

 

[ProfessorLayton]

I would rather have someone violate my personal space and see a rough image of my dong than be worried about someone bringing a bomb on the airplane.

 

[Therumancer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaquille_O'Neal#Personal_life

Do you seriously think you can prevent Shaq from getting on a plane if he wants to?[/quote]


?

Yes, very easily if the laws are passed. I'm sure he and other celebrities would make a massive amount of noise about it too (directly affected by itor not). But in the end, yes it most certainly can be enforced.

While celebrities do get a free hand to some extent, there is a point at which they will be locked away, especially if it comes to serious crimes. If someone actually took the law to this point, those passing it would believe in it for the greater good, and be expecting a backlash. Someone like Shaq if he lead the pack might very well find themselves being made an example of.

Truthfully though I'd imagine anyone that Americanized would actually set out to try and create a good example. He might even be comissioned to in all honesty.

If you mean it in the context of "Shaq is so dangerous, he would whoop up on anyone who tried" that's a laugh. Trust me, anyplace with serious security is ready for even very large and dangerous people if they have to be. Get too belligerant and violent, given no other options that's what guns are for.

Nobody would want a "Shaq gunned down during scuffle with airport security over routine check" headline, but by the same token I seriously doubt he'd do anything more than make noise and wind up getting escorted out. Even if he called to all his fans to boycott mass transit in response, one of the criticisms of the entire airline industry (less prominant now given the financial troubles) has always been that it's a monopoly. Sure you can boycott it, but the bottom line is that if you need to get accross the ocean or whatever for a meeting it's not like you can walk, and when time is a factor planes become your only option.

The fact that air travel is a monopoly like this is why there was that "microscare" about pay toilets and stuff on planes. They actually could do that and people wouldn't have much choice except to suck it up. Ditto for security.

I honestly think it's more likely that simply allowing the profiling would be sufficient. Fair or not I doubt things would go as far as the all out ban (worst case scenario if someone followed my suggestion). Under profiling Shaquille O'Neal definatly counts as a 'person of note'. He is easily recognized. It's sort of like how under racial profiling theory (which is illegal currently, and I do NOT suggest for general societal use as I explained) you might profile a certain minority, but if your a cop and already know a certain person and where they live in a neighborhood your not going to constantly harass them in the process of
normal traffic.

 

[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.

OH NOES!

WE NEED TO BLOCK THE SKY AND PREVENT LIGHTNING!

We need some sort of dome. It worked for Springfield.

 

[tmujir955]

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.

OH NOES!

WE NEED TO BLOCK THE SKY AND PREVENT LIGHTNING!

We need some sort of dome. It worked for Springfield.

YESH.

You ares genuis111!!!1!

 

[NoNameMcgee]

@Pyro_Paul:

You're paranoid. Why do you think these measures are being implemented exactly?

Any intelligent person knows you're not giving up any of your dignity, security or freedom. Christ, it's just our bodies, and the pictures aren't even very clear. If it helps them find people who try to smuggle weapons or bombs, then fuck the people that whine about being seen naked. The whole problem people may have with this is our irrational fear of our bodies being seen, which is just that: irrational. And as I said before, safety is tonnes more important, so people are just going to have to live with it.

 

[Griphphin]

Judging by the picture in question, I don't think you could distinguish one person from another. Don't we have security cameras in dressing rooms at apartment stores?