Airport scanners can store, transmit images

[legalsea]

I am amazed at people’s definition of ‘privileges’ versus ‘rights’.

According to the viewpoint of many who say that flying is a privilege, then owning a business must be a privilege, not a right. After all, we are talking about privately owned companies (airlines). I did not realize that to conduct a business, and for people to use that business, was a privilege in this country.

Ah! But Airplanes can be hijacked and used to cause mass destruction! Hence we must allow any level of security to prevent this! After all, I may be on that plane!

However, the same may be said of motor vehicles (the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the federal building in Oklahoma City, and more examples abound). Perhaps we should have security checks for all using an interstate bus service? Or the train? Should all eighteen wheeler trucks be stopped at the city limits and the truck, and driver, scanned?

As I said before, we should be laughing loud and long at this idiot that set his pants on fire. Terrorists hate to be laughed at.

Instead, we have people screaming that we must impose more and more restrictions, exactly as the terrorists wished. The object of terrorism is to strike terror into the populace. It is sad that it has gotten to the point where some guy setting his underwear on fire causes panic among people.

I think airlines security has done a very good job since 2001. True, someday someone will probably bring down an airplane (probably by SAMs) but I think we should worry more about our water supply, electrical grid, etc.

 

[bicker]

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but I don't view paying $1,000 for my family to fly to/from Florida as a privilege. I'm a customer of the airline and if the only way they can guarantee my safety is to view my naked image on a scanner, they can keep their "privilege."

Whoa! I'm not saying that this a privilege granted to you by the airline!!! You are correct in asserting that you're buying a service from the airline and therefore "deserve" service from the airline.

The element of privilege that I'm saying is granted to you, is granted to you by the nation that you're traveling in. It is the nation that is imposing the requirement for security screening, not the airline.

(I'll leave your technical questions for TSA employees who wish to answer those questions for you.)

You're correct there. I don't have to fly, and neither does anyone else. Are we considering what this will do to our economy?

Of course they are considering that. This is a capitalist country, and the impact of everything we do is assessed in the context of many factors, consumer concerns just one among that many. You can rest assured that just like your privacy concerns are reflected in this new policy, the concerns of how this will affect the economy are also reflected. And yet this policy is still issued, because neither your privacy concerns nor business' concerns trump all other considerations. All factors are taken together and assessed together to make the best decision for the nation.

I may plunk a grand to fly to WDW this summer, but I have to go through a scanner, I'm not going. Maybe no one cares if it's just me, but if a lot of other people start saying "Enough!" it can have a very negative effect.

I'm guessing that it won't amount to many people like you.

 

[bicker]

It strikes me that this exact argument could be made for mandatory vaccination.

Such as what is imposed by our states in order for our children to be permitted into our schools. And remember, opting-out, in that scenario, is not as easy as simply not flying. Opting-out of sending your children to state schools requires either paying tuition to a private school, or home-schooling your children.

That's a great example of where we've been doing something very similar to this, elsewhere in society, for years.

 

[bicker]

According to the viewpoint of many who say that flying is a privilege, then owning a business must be a privilege, not a right.

Indeed. As a matter of fact, the US Constitution even explicitly states that the federal government has the right to regulate the privilege of doing business, when that business crosses state lines.

Now remember, just because something is a privilege doesn't mean that it must be restricted.

Hence we must allow any level of security to prevent this!

You have executed, here, the fallacy of the excluded middle. As a nation, we don't have to choose between no security and absolutely all security. Rather, what our nation is doing in this case, is making a decision to adopt this security, based on consideration of factors.

As I said before, we should be laughing loud and long at this idiot that set his pants on fire. Terrorists hate to be laughed at.

I doubt anyone would be laughing if the guy actually was successful in setting off the explosives. We're lucky he wasn't as competent as some others.

 

[sbell111]

Yes they are. I also question how the images get to the screeners who view them. Is there a direct wire from the scanner to the viewing screen in the other room? I don't think so. They are being transmitted somehow.

Huh? Why wouldn't there be a cable going from the scanner to the monitor?

Yeah, that's the thing. It doesn't actually make flying safer. It just makes it *seem* safer, while not actually doing anything.

It has the capability to image items that are not allowed on the aircraft and, therefore, stop badness from happening. In my mind, that makes flying safer.

Well, considering the amount of money I have to pay for my flights, I'm not so sure I see it as a "privilege".

It seems that your very argument that flying is expensive proves that it is a priviledge, not a right. After all, some cannot afford to pay for those tickets to WDW, so they hop in the jalop and drive. If flying were a right, these people would still be allowed to fly, even if they couldn't afford the high priced tickets.

If they're welcome to go through your luggage, scan your body, limit your liquids and do anything else, how do you feel about being brought into a room, stripped naked and having a latex-gloved TSA agent stick her fingers into your body cavities searching for something? Or being brought into a restroom and handing over your used maxipad so that can be examined?

Ummm, both of those eventualities would be allowable under the previous security model. If they believed that you were smuggling something 'down there', they do have the authority to check.

Seriously, that is how criminals are treated, and I'm not going to subject myself to anything like that if it's the only way to get on a plane.

You might want to consider Amtrak.

I don't have to fly, and neither does anyone else. Are we considering what this will do to our economy? I may plunk a grand to fly to WDW this summer, but I have to go through a scanner, I'm not going. Maybe no one cares if it's just me, but if a lot of other people start saying "Enough!" it can have a very negative effect.

Something tells me that the economy is going to survive this. I rather doubt that increasing security in this manner is going to drive away a significant number of passengers.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I think that Janice brought it up in a kind of: "What's next?!?" kind of way. If we continue to submit to violation of privacy rights in the interest of "security", where does it end? First we were run through a metal detector, and then we were "wanded" and then were were patted down. Now we are viewed naked. Are full cavity searches really that far behind? DNA swabs? National IDs with all our information coded onto it? 5 years ago I would not have expected that a TSA agent would see me naked. Who knows what other indignities we will have to endure 5 years from NOW if we want to fly?

ETA: It's not just flying, either. If we come to an acceptance of these kind of procedures in certain circumstances like flying or going to a concert, they can easily be generalized to everyday life.

That's how I feel about it as well. Everyone says "If it will make it safer....". Well, all the taking off of the shoes and boarding with 3 ounces of shampoo haven't worked. This person, flying in from another country mind you, was still able to get explosives on the planes.

I'm not saying stop all security. But I am saying that the invasive stuff done to Americans flying domestically can't be allowed to start because it continues down the path of what Americans will allow to be done to them in the name of some misguided perception of safety.

 

[FireDancer]

It strikes me that this exact argument could be made for mandatory vaccination. People are much more likely to die of preventable diseases than they are from terrorism on flights, so it would make sense to enforce vaccination. That would keep the spread of disease down, potentially saving many lives by increasing herd immunity for those who are unable to be vaccinated. There are some strong statistics showing how certain diseases have returned thanks to those who take an anti vaccine stance. Yes, it's invasive and many people would be uncomfortable with it, but then " there are going to be people who are going to seek to put their own personal feelings about their bodies over the public good."

I am NOT saying I believe the above statement, but it's interesting how easily your argument could be applied elsewhere.

There is a very big difference in my opinion between being forced to put a chemical into your body and being scanned by a non invasive machine.

If the machine required a dye to be injected into the body for the scan to work I would then start to look at it like mandatory vaccination and would feel it was a violation of our bodies. As it stands I don't see it as that because it is a scan and not the forcing of a chemical into our bodies. I see it as no different than being recorded at the ATM while performing a transaction. Even the most modest person who thinks it is an invasion of privacy couldn't argue that it is the same as injecting something into the body. It does nothing to alter our internal chemistry but forced vaccination or medication does. That is where I see the difference.

As for whether or not they are a good idea, I am done with that debate. People have their opinions and we aren't going to change them one way or another. It just turns into the ridiculous eventually.

It is what it is and in the end the free market will determine what we accept and what we do not. If air travel drops by 90% because of the machines something will be done because money talks.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I am amazed at people’s definition of ‘privileges’ versus ‘rights’.

According to the viewpoint of many who say that flying is a privilege, then owning a business must be a privilege, not a right. After all, we are talking about privately owned companies (airlines). I did not realize that to conduct a business, and for people to use that business, was a privilege in this country.

Ah! But Airplanes can be hijacked and used to cause mass destruction! Hence we must allow any level of security to prevent this! After all, I may be on that plane!

However, the same may be said of motor vehicles (the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the federal building in Oklahoma City, and more examples abound). Perhaps we should have security checks for all using an interstate bus service? Or the train? Should all eighteen wheeler trucks be stopped at the city limits and the truck, and driver, scanned?

As I said before, we should be laughing loud and long at this idiot that set his pants on fire. Terrorists hate to be laughed at. I agree. This was a loner in a failed attempt to make his mark. It wasn't some organized attack on the US.

I said before and I still maintain my stance: if this had been an actual terrorist attack, there would have been more coverage about it while it was happening. I watched this story unfold on Christmas day afternoon and CNN was the only station that carried it live. CNBC, MSNBC, Faux News, ABC, NBC and CBS all had some other programming on.

Can you imagine something like that happening on 9/11/01? Only one network carrying the attack on the twin towers? So my litmus test is this: if it's not important enough for our 24 hour news organizations to bother coming in on a holiday to cover live, then it's not that big of a deal to the well-being of our country.

Instead, we have people screaming that we must impose more and more restrictions, exactly as the terrorists wished. The object of terrorism is to strike terror into the populace. It is sad that it has gotten to the point where some guy setting his underwear on fire causes panic among people. I blame the media and the masses of sheeple. If people are being told 24/7 that they're not safe unless they get duct tape and plastic and seal their houses, eventually they'll start believing that message whether it's true or not.

Personally, I think they stopped the duct tape and plastic thing when they realized that their viewers were more likely to die sealed in their homes than they were of anthrax attacks so they had to tell people to unseal their houses and go get food and water.

I think airlines security has done a very good job since 2001. True, someday someone will probably bring down an airplane (probably by SAMs) but I think we should worry more about our water supply, electrical grid, etc.

That's my concern as well. The airline thing has been done in grand scale. Now that we're aware of it, we're watching that. So if someone wanted to "get" us they're going to go where we're NOT watching.

 

[bicker]

Well, all the taking off of the shoes and boarding with 3 ounces of shampoo haven't worked.

Where is the proof of that outrageous categorical claim? I think folks who don't like security are just making that up, and they don't have any real evidence proving that security measures taken haven't had some significant deterrent effect. It is pretty cynical to make such a blanket statement, without any means of proving what they're claiming, either in the positive or the negative. As it is, our nation actually designates specific people to be our experts in these matters. Why should we believe the curmudgeons instead of those on whom we place the responsibility for protecting us? The whole situation stinks to me of second-guessing. People don't like something, so they seek to fabricate a defense for their offense, without any responsibility to stand behind what they're putting forward.

I'm not saying stop all security. But I am saying that the invasive stuff done to Americans flying domestically can't be allowed to start because it continues down the path of what Americans will allow to be done to them in the name of some misguided perception of safety.

All I see there is, "Just do what I want you to do, not what you say you need to do, to fulfill the responsibility I have placed on you." I had some managers, in the past, who tried to dump something like that on me. Yup, stinks to high-Heaven of second-guessing.

 

[luvmy3]

I am amazed at people’s definition of ‘privileges’ versus ‘rights’.

According to the viewpoint of many who say that flying is a privilege, then owning a business must be a privilege, not a right. After all, we are talking about privately owned companies (airlines). I did not realize that to conduct a business, and for people to use that business, was a privilege in this country.

Ah! But Airplanes can be hijacked and used to cause mass destruction! Hence we must allow any level of security to prevent this! After all, I may be on that plane!

However, the same may be said of motor vehicles (the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the federal building in Oklahoma City, and more examples abound). Perhaps we should have security checks for all using an interstate bus service? Or the train? Should all eighteen wheeler trucks be stopped at the city limits and the truck, and driver, scanned?

As I said before, we should be laughing loud and long at this idiot that set his pants on fire. Terrorists hate to be laughed at.

Instead, we have people screaming that we must impose more and more restrictions, exactly as the terrorists wished. The object of terrorism is to strike terror into the populace. It is sad that it has gotten to the point where some guy setting his underwear on fire causes panic among people.

I think airlines security has done a very good job since 2001. True, someday someone will probably bring down an airplane (probably by SAMs) but I think we should worry more about our water supply, electrical grid, etc.

Actually the object of the jihadist terrorists is to kill infidels so as I see it, any jihadist terrorist with an explosive device that has successfully made his way onto an aircraft filled with infidels and attempts to blow it up, has certainly justified the panic that we feel when it comes to airline security. If this scanner even serves as a deterent to those terrorists, I'm okay with that.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I didn't weigh in on the original thread, but my opinion is that if it will make flying safer then they can scan away! I strongly believe that flying is a priviledge and not a right. They are welcome to go through my luggage, scan my body, limit my liquids and do whatever it may take to make it safe for everyone on the plane and on the ground. Besides, I don't think pictures of my scanned body are really something that airport security workers would want to share with their friends

I'm sure these people didn't think pictures of what they were wearing was anything anyone would want to share with their friends, either.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

On the internet there is always an audience for the lowest common denominator: people who want to point at, laugh at or make disparaging remarks about others - even perfect strangers.

Now imagine any of the photos on that website are actually photos of your scanned naked body put there for other people to make comments about and then ask yourself if this humiliation that you'll be facing until you die is worth that ONE stopped terrorist?

 

[bicker]

I blame the media and the masses of sheeple.

This is one of the aspects of this whole issue that I really object to. Many of the advocates, especially those arrayed against tighter security, feel they can support their perspective by grossly disparaging the majority of their fellow Americans. Any perspective founded on the principle that most others are inferior, in this manner, is seriously suspect, as far as I'm concerned. Elitist and carelessly disrespectful, at best, this is not a worthy foundation for any assertions about anything in our society. Reasonable people disagree about matters like this. When respect for opposing viewpoints is gone, then the ability to live together in peace is gone.

 

[robinb]

I'm sure these people didn't think pictures of what they were wearing was anything anyone would want to share with their friends, either.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

On the internet there is always an audience for the lowest common denominator: people who want to point at, laugh at or make disparaging remarks about others - even perfect strangers.

You know what they'll say: "No one is forcing you to shop at Wal*Mart. Shopping at Wal*Mart is a privilege and not a right!"

 

[FergieTCat]

If they want to burn holes into their retinas and subject the rest of the population to an endless, bitter winter, let them go right ahead and full-body scan me. But don't say I didn't warn you!

 

[JerseyJanice]

You know what they'll say: "No one is forcing you to shop at Wal*Mart. Shopping at Wal*Mart is a privilege and not a right!"

I really want to know if these scannings are instituted, what assurance people have that they won't be subjected to a full body search for having something "normal" in their underwear.

 

[ICF]

Now imagine any of the photos on that website are actually photos of your scanned naked body put there for other people to make comments about and then ask yourself if this humiliation that you'll be facing until you die is worth that ONE stopped terrorist?

You realize that in these photos that nobody can tell it is actually you right? It's not like they are taking a clear photo that anyone can look at and identify you as you right? It's a fuzzy colored image and bears little resemblance to an actual naked photograph of you.

And to be honest.....humiliation is a bit of a stretch, even if they could identify you, and yes, I would probably be ok with it if it save the lives of hundreds of people in just ONE terrorist attack.

 

[bicker]

And to be honest.....humiliation is a bit of a stretch, even if they could identify you, and yes, I would probably be ok with it if it save the lives of hundreds of people in just ONE terrorist attack.

That's really part of the critical calculus here: How much is a single saved life worth, in terms of the uneasy feeling some get from having these fuzzy pictures? Not everyone necessarily has to agree that one is worth more or less than another, but it is essential that we acknowledge that people who feel either way have a right to have their perspective, in that regard, respected, and factored in to the decision about what the rules will be.

I would love to hear, though, from someone who has to do this job, to get a little more insight into that side of it. I think that will be very enlightening regarding the concerns about who is going to see what.

 

[Minnesota!]

You realize that in these photos that nobody can tell it is actually you right? It's not like they are taking a clear photo that anyone can look at and identify you as you right? It's a fuzzy colored image and bears little resemblance to an actual naked photograph of you.

And to be honest.....humiliation is a bit of a stretch, even if they could identify you, and yes, I would probably be ok with it if it save the lives of hundreds of people in just ONE terrorist attack.

Ditto.

Like I said - if anyone wants to post fuzzy, xray looking pics of my body on the internet - so be it.

 

[Carly_Roach]

You realize that in these photos that nobody can tell it is actually you right? It's not like they are taking a clear photo that anyone can look at and identify you as you right? It's a fuzzy colored image and bears little resemblance to an actual naked photograph of you.

And to be honest.....humiliation is a bit of a stretch, even if they could identify you, and yes, I would probably be ok with it if it save the lives of hundreds of people in just ONE terrorist attack.

And what if it doesn't save the lives of anyone? Is it now worth it when that co-worker you beat out for a promotion happens to have a BF who's an airport security worker who gets a copy of your nude photograph and she posts it where your other co-workes can now see it? Even though the face may be blurry, the body shape sure wouldn't lie. They'd know it was you.

I'm sure you could sue and probably have her fired - even more incentive to take that nude photo of you viral on the internet. And I'm sure you can sue the airport as well. But that won't stop the photo. It'd be there waiting for you wherever you went.

And all in the name of "If it saves even ONE life...."

Of course, there's really no use arguing about any of this I suppose. None of it's going to matter once Ebola or Anthrax gets into our water supply.

 

[Minnesota!]

And what if it doesn't save the lives of anyone? Is it now worth it when that co-worker you beat out for a promotion happens to have a BF who's an airport security worker who gets a copy of your nude photograph and she posts it where your other co-workes can now see it? Even though the face may be blurry, the body shape sure wouldn't lie. They'd know it was you.

I'm sure you could sue and probably have her fired - even more incentive to take that nude photo of you viral on the internet. And I'm sure you can sue the airport as well. But that won't stop the photo. It'd be there waiting for you wherever you went.

And all in the name of "If it saves even ONE life...."

Of course, there's really no use arguing about any of this I suppose. None of it's going to matter once Ebola or Anthrax gets into our water supply.

Wow. paranoid much?

Can't say more or I will get points.