Full body scans / full body pat downs whats your take ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

travel is not a choice
Did I say travel was not a choice? No, I said flying by commercial airlines is a choice, and it is. Stop these juvenile debate tactics.

you say I have an over inflated sense of intetilement for saying we have the RIGHT to NOT be abused when we need to fly ?
Once again, you have failed to argue that it is abuse. Claiming such does not make it so.

yet you claim other people have the RIGHT to make US pay for THERE healthcare your sense of right is obviously so skewed as to be obsurd
How dare you compare healthcare, a life/death necessity, to commercial airline flight, a transportation convenience. Seriously, you're so incredibly out of line.

the tsa image agian was clearly proven factual as to what hte machines can do and since no one can see there own image when its scanned theres no way to prove there NOT using it to its full capability
In an earlier post I asked you what will convince you, and you have yet to step up. In fact, you have yet to provide one iota of substantiating evidence in support of any of your crap.
 

DeletedUser

and you have yet to provide one iota of SENSE you post complete abusrdity comercial flight isnt a choice when theres no other feesible options

as for it not being abust hmmm

oh look the definition of sexual abuse
"
  1. The forcing of unwanted sexual activity by one person on another, as by the use of threats or coercion.
  2. Sexual activity that is deemed improper or harmful, as between an adult and a minor or with a person of diminished mental capacity."
hmmm you cant make NESSISARY flights unless u let us take nude scans of you or feel you up gee

and lastly the image posted was PROVEN to be the head of hte tsa demonstrating the full capabilitys of the scanners
they claim they dont use them to there fullest but people cant view there scans so untill the scans bein viewed( if there so non sexualy revealing it shouldnt be an issue ) are brought out where EVERYONE can see so we all know there not being used in there full capacity

and because you apperntly keep missing it ill post teh happy little part of your link that your missing

"
And while we’re at it:

Because we see it time and time again, we wanted to clear up another bit of misinformation. This is a raw backscatter image with NO privacy algorithm. This is NOT what security officers see – this image was used to show what the capabilities of the technology are.




sooo they CLAIM ther using aprivacy allgorythm but theres no way to prove it
 

DeletedUser

Security measures/some loss of liberty is the price we must pay to combat international terrorism.That is the true prize of those who wish us ill,not a couple buildings or a few thousand lives or some other material or economic damage. It's the fact that we as a society must constantly be aware of their threat/existence.They have changed our lives.

Are there other less instructive alternatives methods that could be used? sure but in security as is the case of business in general it's not about what works and what doesn't.It's about what works the most efficiently (fast/cheap/easy/productive/ect..)
 

DeletedUser

Security measures/some loss of liberty is the price we must pay to combat international terrorism.That is the true prize of those who wish us ill,not a couple buildings or a few thousand lives or some other material or economic damage. It's the fact that we as a society must constantly be aware of their threat/existence.They have changed our lives.

Are there other less instructive alternatives methods that could be used? sure but in security as is the case of business in general it's not about what works and what doesn't.It's about what works the most efficiently (fast/cheap/easy/productive/ect..)

To me there seems to be an inverse relationship between security and freedom, which is actually asymptotic in nature. If you max out freedom you will reduce security to nothing, and if you max out security, you will reduce freedom to nothing. It's all a matter of finding that balance. Unfortunately, we seem to think that security ideas are worse or better depending on who they come from.

securityfreedom.gif


Just take the recent body scans...If they'd come from Bush, there'd be no problem at all from the conservatives. "Bush wants to keep the country safe," you know...But since they are from Obama, they are part of the Totalitarian Socialist Communist Regime that is intent on destroying our freedoms.
 

DeletedUser

The ones complaining about this will be the first ones to complain when a person on their plane hops up and has a bomb on him.
 

DeletedUser26406

so you morons would rather get killed, then have a scan!
Weirdos.
The chance of your pic leaking is less then the chance that your plane will get high jacked/blown up.

Chance of leaked pic:0.5%
Chance of High Jack:2.3%
 

DeletedUser

so you morons would rather get killed, then have a scan!
Weirdos.
The chance of your pic leaking is less then the chance that your plane will get high jacked/blown up.

Chance of leaked pic:0.5%
Chance of High Jack:2.3%

Really? a 2.3% chance of a hijack?

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-commercial-flights-are-there-per-day-in-the-united-states

On an average day in the US there are 28,537 commercial flights, 27,178 general aviation flights, 24,548 air taxi flights. ChaCha!

Answered by Laura L. - 110 days ago at 09:47am on Aug 11 2010 from www.natca.org

=====================================================

So, according to your math there are on the average approximately 656 hijacks per day in the USA? What is happening? Is the Liberal Media covering this up?
 

DeletedUser

It appears that John might of fallen into one of the categories found on here:

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percent-of-facts-are-made-up-on-the-spot

Every source seems to have a different percentage for facts made up on the spot. Some say 98% and some say as little as 42.7%.

Answered by Amy H. - 222 days ago at 03:12am on Apr 21 2010 from www.rateitall.com

======================================================== ===

Doubt that any media knows that statistic ;)

Here's something else I found:

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-are-the-chances-of-your-plane-either-crashing-or-be-hijacked

Flying on the top airlines, crash odds are 1 in 10.46 million. Since 1948, 22 flights have been hijacked (that 60 years). ChaCha!

Answered - 96 days ago at 05:54pm on Aug 25 2010 from www.planecrashinfo.com

============================================================= ===

I believe that it would be hard to find out the exact odds that your body scan image will be put up on a XXX website one day, so to compare which one is more possible would be quite a hard job indeed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

since playing the west, I'm used to being caught with my pants down;)

I agree that security warrants these sorts of scans, but I think the system that contains them from being exploitated is failing.. The (scan) images shouldn't be this easy to find. There should be hefty fines for those caught distributing such material to any medium, regardless if they are law enforces, or regular citizens.
No exceptions. safety at the cost of freedom is no safety at all.
 

DeletedUser

To any? What if it is considered evidence against a terrorist who tried to get explosives on a plane? Should they ask for the terrorist's permission or pay fines, because they presented it in court? They should definitely pay fines for leaks, but I don't think that "ANY" should have a place in your statement.
 

DeletedUser

I've just got to say, this seems really ironic. The Right-Wing seem to be the most outspoken opponents to the TSA pat-downs and searches, yet they were the ones advocating for it the most, advocating stronger airport security, and advocating the prevention of another "9.11".

It just seems incredibly funny, in an idiotic way, that they are flip-flopping like this.
 

DeletedUser

I've just got to say, this seems really ironic. The Right-Wing seem to be the most outspoken opponents to the TSA pat-downs and searches, yet they were the ones advocating for it the most, advocating stronger airport security, and advocating the prevention of another "9.11".

It just seems incredibly funny, in an idiotic way, that they are flip-flopping like this.

Obama suggested it, and they must oppose all that he represents.
 

DeletedUser

Actually, Obama never really suggested it. TSA did it themselves. Obama merely asked them if there was "another way" rather than the searches. All those horror stories you hear about are usually blown WAY out of proportion by the media, just like H1N1(Swine Flu) was. Those stories such as the TSA agent sticking his hands in a man's pants probably had a bit of a backstory, i.e the passenger resisted a scan or was acting hostile. The only problem I have with the full-body scanners is the radiation emitted from them, if you are a business man/woman then you probably fly weekly, and that radiation could be dangerous for your body.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Personally, I'm opposed to the scans.

I know many are saying it's a violation of constitutional rights, and I too think it is.

The counter argument that I gave consent and have other options? True, but, point is, the government has no reason to be doing this REGARDLESS of consent.


Let's put it this way, if there was a mass terrorist poisoning at grocery stores, say someone went into one in NYC and sprayed all the meat and produce with a poison and no one caught them, and the government next said all grocery stores had to have guards and protocols like airports for entry, would the same argument apply? Sure! You don't have a RIGHT to shop at a grocery store, you can always go to the source, or grow/raise your own food! You can go to co-ops or things like that!

How about if some terrorist blows themselves up in a walmart? You don't NEED to go to a walmart, so by going you're giving consent to that search!

Where do we stop? At what point DOES it become a violation of our rights? Yes consent is 'given' but, at the same time as many people do have a NECESSITY to fly. Is it really proper for the government to say "You HAVE to give us permission to search you, or you can't use a PRIVATE industry!"

There are a LOT of ways a major terrorist attack can occur, forcing consent to a search or denying the use of a private industry, whether technically constitutional or not, I feel definitely goes against the SPIRIT of the constitution if nothing else.
 

DeletedUser22575

Personally, I'm opposed to the scans.

I know many are saying it's a violation of constitutional rights, and I too think it is.

The counter argument that I gave consent and have other options? True, but, point is, the government has no reason to be doing this REGARDLESS of consent.


Let's put it this way, if there was a mass terrorist poisoning at grocery stores, say someone went into one in NYC and sprayed all the meat and produce with a poison and no one caught them, and the government next said all grocery stores had to have guards and protocols like airports for entry, would the same argument apply? Sure! You don't have a RIGHT to shop at a grocery store, you can always go to the source, or grow/raise your own food! You can go to co-ops or things like that!

How about if some terrorist blows themselves up in a walmart? You don't NEED to go to a walmart, so by going you're giving consent to that search!

Where do we stop? At what point DOES it become a violation of our rights? Yes consent is 'given' but, at the same time as many people do have a NECESSITY to fly. Is it really proper for the government to say "You HAVE to give us permission to search you, or you can't use a PRIVATE industry!"

There are a LOT of ways a major terrorist attack can occur, forcing consent to a search or denying the use of a private industry, whether technically constitutional or not, I feel definitely goes against the SPIRIT of the constitution if nothing else.

So your saying what here. No searches?

That your right to use something that you claim is a "necessity" without having to be searched out weighs the right of 200-300 passengers on an airplane not to be blown up?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

So your saying what here. No searches?

That your right to use something that you claim is a "necessity" without having to be searched out weighs the right of 200-300 passengers on an airplane not to be blown up?

Actually, yes. I am saying that. How many planes have been blown up?

How many bomb plots have been stopped by the TSA?

What's stopping a guy from sticking a bomb up his bum and getting through?

If a guy DOES stick a bomb up his bum and blows up a plane, will we have to consent to cavity searches to get on a plane?

What's the point where enough is enough to YOU?

Also, I AM one of those passengers. I don't fly THAT frequently, but I NOW fly at least 6 round trips a year give or take. That might go down to 3 times a year, but, I DO fly, the last time was for Thanksgiving. No, I have not been subjected to either the scanner OR the enhanced patdown, though the airports I fly between do have the scanners. I'm opposed to it due to the morality, and what I feel is the violation of our rights due to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top