"Naked" X-Ray Scans At The Airport.. Your Thoughts?

[legalsea]

You are most welcome to your opinion. My opinion is that it doesn't matter how far we go with this - even to the point of every American having to have a full strip-down body cavity search - if someone wants to blow up a plane, they will blow up a plane.

I'm not giving up my right to privacy on the .00125% chance that someday, somehow, somewhere, someone might blow up some plane. Sorry. Not going to happen.

If that makes you think I'm a selfish loser, then fine. I can live with that.

My sentiments exactly. I imagine that in the next ten years at least one or two commercial airplanes will be destroyed by terrorist.

Meanwhile, during the same time span, at least 100,000 people will be killed in the USA by drunk drivers.

 

[Carly_Roach]

well, I have not read all posts, but watching the Boston area news they said that Logan WILL be getting these, but the good news for people who do not want the scan, you can be pat down! and you have the choice! so that takes care of that!
again, if it is going to save someone, I have no problem with a x~ray scan.

My point is that this is NOT going to save anyone, just like restricting lotions and liquids for all passengers didn't stop this particular attempt.

All these people stating, "I don't care, I don't have anything to hide, they can do it to me, I don't care, I want to be safe" are perfect examples of social engineering at its best. These people believe that by giving up their (and everyone else's) right to privacy, they'll somehow get safety in return when, in reality, there is no such thing as absolute safety.

It saddens me that generations of men and women fought and died for our personal liberties in this country and here we are ready to throw those liberties away for a "warm fuzzy" fallacy of a so-called security blanket. If this current day country morphed back to 1765, I don't see too many of us even surviving, let alone actually having the courage and determination to fight (and die) for our freedoms.

 

[sbell111]

The latest incident on Dec 25th involved a man entering this country on an international flight. Until every airport in the world uses the same screening method, it won't be enough to do full body scans here in the U.S. For some other countries, the equipment will be cost prohibitive.

The US can (and does) have a level of control regarding the security screening of flights entering the country.

I went thru one once and I did not like it at all. I felt extremely violated. Once you go thru they make you wait in a little area to see if it was ok for me to continue thru to go to my gate. Lets just say that the person looking at my image and the person waiting in the area with us were making comments about me and my piercings that are hidden. I felt extremely uncomfortable.

Wow, that was quite rude.

I'm somewhat surprised that a person doesn't remove the jewelry from his/her 'hidden' piercings prior to going through security. It seems that these would have a fairly good degree of causing trouble while going through and resulting in additional screening methods, thereby resulting in discussion amongst the screeners.

oh PLEASE! yeah that's what they're TELLING us....but how do we ACTUALLY know if there's no way for those images to be saved or leaked somehow??

i'm sorry, i don't trust anyone, not even the TSA or the government......i only trust myself.

Honestly, it is impossible to have any conversation regarding these issues with someone who is determined not to believe the other side.

IMO it doesn't matter if the scans are fuzzy or crystal clear, they're invasive and I can see great potential for misuse of those images. One example: instead of finding yourself on The People of Walmart website, you may someday see yourself on "The Fatties of America" website. And once those images are on the web, there's no taking them back. Sue all you want, have the website take them down. But it won't matter: once it's on the web, it's viral. And it's there for the rest of your natural-born life.

The scans can't get to the web. Heck, even if they were magically teleported to a webserver, you couldn't tell that it was you in the image.

Still, they can't get to the web, so it's a non-issue. Did I mention that they cannot get to the web?

These scans will do absolutely nothing to make us safer. If a terrorist is hell-bent on bringing down a plane, then they will find a way. Giving up my liberty and privacy every day isn't going to stop that and it opens a whole new door on what others can do what I've blindly chosen to give up.

Of course you are correct that he wanted to, if he was properly motivated and had the resources. A terrorist organization could certainly use an RPG or similar weapon to take down a plane. Still, they try to destroy them from within. This activity requires us to come up with new and better ways to keep these bad guys off the planes.

You are most welcome to your opinion. My opinion is that it doesn't matter how far we go with this - even to the point of every American having to have a full strip-down body cavity search - if someone wants to blow up a plane, they will blow up a plane.

I'm not giving up my right to privacy on the .00125% chance that someday, somehow, somewhere, someone might blow up some plane. Sorry. Not going to happen.

If that makes you think I'm a selfish loser, then fine. I can live with that.

What if the chance was 100% that someday, somehow, somewheresomeone would be stopped from blowing up a plane through the use of this technology?

"Those who would do us harm", (the euphemism for terrorists) come from a certain demographic with a few exceptions. Women have become part of that scenario in certain countries. Would that demographic 'allow their' women to be subjected to full body scans when many of them cannot be in public uncovered? Just a question, but I think I know the answer to that.

I think that you are advocating the use of this device if only to stop female, 'devout' muslim terrorists. I would hope that it actually casts a larger net, but I'll take what I can get.

 

[sbell111]

Am I the only one who is terribly afraid about dying in a terrorist attack? Statistically it is still very rare. I'm more likely to die in a accident. The issue is that TSA needs to look like they're doing something, in order to calm people's fears. I just don't feel like it's going to solve the problem.

No one security measure will guarantee that we are safe. Instead, we use numerous interlocking methods to work towards complete safety.

Mark my words, if there is another major terrorist attack on mass transportation, it will be from someone infiltrating the industry as an employee. Far more effective, with a higher probable casualty rate.

The TSA and airlines take this particular threat very seriously and continue to take steps to ensure that it is minimized.

My point is that this is NOT going to save anyone, just like restricting lotions and liquids for all passengers didn't stop this particular attempt.

That's because this particular attempt didn't use liquids.

Just because this attempt didn't involve liquids doesn't mean that other attempts weren't stopped by the ban.

All these people stating, "I don't care, I don't have anything to hide, they can do it to me, I don't care, I want to be safe" are perfect examples of social engineering at its best. These people believe that by giving up their (and everyone else's) right to privacy, they'll somehow get safety in return when, in reality, there is no such thing as absolute safety.

It saddens me that generations of men and women fought and died for our personal liberties in this country and here we are ready to throw those liberties away for a "warm fuzzy" fallacy of a so-called security blanket. If this current day country morphed back to 1765, I don't see too many of us even surviving, let alone actually having the courage and determination to fight (and die) for our freedoms.

I'm a big advocate of protecting our civil rights. However, this procedure doesn't appear to violate any of them.

 

[DawnCt1]

The US can (and does) have a level of control regarding the security screening of flights entering the country.

I'm somewhat surprised that a person doesn't remove the jewelry from his/her 'hidden' piercings prior to going through security. It seems that these would have a fairly good degree of causing trouble while going through and resulting in additional screening methods, thereby resulting in discussion amongst the screeners.

Honestly, it is impossible to have any conversation regarding these issues with someone who is determined not to believe the other side.

The scans can't get to the web. Heck, even if they were magically teleported to a webserver, you couldn't tell that it was you in the image.

Still, they can't get to the web, so it's a non-issue. Did I mention that they cannot get to the web?Of course you are correct that he wanted to, if he was properly motivated and had the resources. A terrorist organization could certainly use an RPG or similar weapon to take down a plane. Still, they try to destroy them from within. This activity requires us to come up with new and better ways to keep these bad guys off the planes.

What if the chance was 100% that someday, somehow, somewheresomeone would be stopped from blowing up a plane through the use of this technology?

I think that you are advocating the use of this device if only to stop female, 'devout' muslim terrorists. I would hope that it actually casts a larger net, but I'll take what I can get.

No, I am advocating using it to catch any terrorists. I am just pointing out however that this is one demographic that may indeed slip through the cracks. Bomb sniffing dogs are another tool that would be very effective. There are religious sanctions against dogs as well. The question is, "When was the last time that El Al had an incident?" No one really remembers because they profile behavior, that ask questions, then send agents out among the waiting passengers and pull them aside. A passenger doesn't just need to "hold it together" as they walk through security but they need t6 maintain their demeanor throughout the wait. Very hard to do if one has "a plan".

 

[happygirl]

Why do we not choose to use dogs?

I'm going to guess it has something to do with all those people who are deathly allergic to dogs.

 

[NatashaDisneyCM]

My point is that this is NOT going to save anyone, just like restricting lotions and liquids for all passengers didn't stop this particular attempt.

All these people stating, "I don't care, I don't have anything to hide, they can do it to me, I don't care, I want to be safe" are perfect examples of social engineering at its best. These people believe that by giving up their (and everyone else's) right to privacy, they'll somehow get safety in return when, in reality, there is no such thing as absolute safety.

It saddens me that generations of men and women fought and died for our personal liberties in this country and here we are ready to throw those liberties away for a "warm fuzzy" fallacy of a so-called security blanket. If this current day country morphed back to 1765, I don't see too many of us even surviving, let alone actually having the courage and determination to fight (and die) for our freedoms.

hum, all righty then!

 

[shrubber]

I'm going to guess it has something to do with all those people who are deathly allergic to dogs.

I had,nt thought of that, but I would assume that they could request that they be searched in another manner similiar to the searches being done now.
And are there really people deathly allergic to dogs being in the same room? I have never heard of that

 

[happygirl]

I had,nt thought of that, but I would assume that they could request that they be searched in another manner similiar to the searches being done now.
And are there really people deathly allergic to dogs being in the same room? I have never heard of that

Yes, it just like any other allergy

 

[DawnCt1]

I'm going to guess it has something to do with all those people who are deathly allergic to dogs.

I have seen leashed guard dogs used in public areas. Someone could state that they have allergies and opt for another form of search. Dogs are very effective however when it comes to detecting explosives.

 

[mhsjax]

hum, all righty then!

I think Carly's post was excellent, in fact one of the best ones I have read in a long time.

 

[eliza61]

My point is that this is NOT going to save anyone, just like restricting lotions and liquids for all passengers didn't stop this particular attempt.

All these people stating, "I don't care, I don't have anything to hide, they can do it to me, I don't care, I want to be safe" are perfect examples of social engineering at its best. These people believe that by giving up their (and everyone else's) right to privacy, they'll somehow get safety in return when, in reality, there is no such thing as absolute safety.

It saddens me that generations of men and women fought and died for our personal liberties in this country and here we are ready to throw those liberties away for a "warm fuzzy" fallacy of a so-called security blanket. If this current day country morphed back to 1765, I don't see too many of us even surviving, let alone actually having the courage and determination to fight (and die) for our freedoms.

You cannot impose this centuries criteria on 1765. Different time, different era. Who knows what the "generations" of men and women who fought and died for our personal liberties would have done. My dad and grandfather both fought and won medals for a country that did not even allow them to ride in the front of a bus so obviously we are just as capable of surviving with restrictions on personal liberties. Now can we please stop with this argument. We have no idea of what anyone would have done faced with the same set of circumstances in 1779, 1889, or 1999.

And let's not forget that those same people who had the "courage" to fight for our freedoms also had the "courage" to enslave half the population so this country is right at home destroying peoples liberties.

 

[NatashaDisneyCM]

I think Carly's post was excellent, in fact one of the best ones I have read in a long time.

thats nice, I am happy for ya! I think some people here have WAY to much time on there hands! I on the other hand have two days off, and did this! never again! wow!!

 

[MelanieC]

I have no problems at all with the new screeing.

 

[clovergirl5]

I'm fine with the naked x-rays. Finally, someone will get to see how well I fill out the Victoria's Secret lingerie that I treated myself to this holiday season. Don't judge, it makes me feel young and sexy.

Aren't you a man?

 

[LisaR]

You are most welcome to your opinion. My opinion is that it doesn't matter how far we go with this - even to the point of every American having to have a full strip-down body cavity search - if someone wants to blow up a plane, they will blow up a plane.

I'm not giving up my right to privacy on the .00125% chance that someday, somehow, somewhere, someone might blow up some plane. Sorry. Not going to happen.

If that makes you think I'm a selfish loser, then fine. I can live with that.

Not true at all. There is actually a very simple way of preventing planes from blowing up due to terrorists. Use the plan that is place that has already been proven to work. Follow the policies that El Al airlines have done for years. But we don't want that in America. We don't want to be forced to get to the airport a minimum of three hours early or be interrogated by gun wielding, trained individuals. We don't want profiling; especially since they not only profile Arabs, they also profile single women because they tend to be blind to their lover terrorist boyfriend. We don't want pat downs that leave you feeling like you should buy the guy dinner when it is over.

So sure, there is a way it can be done but Americans moan about having to take their shoes off and feel a body scan is too invasive. This country would revolt if we were subjected to the policies of El Al. However, they don't have any problems with their flights. So don't say it can't be done. It can. We just don't want it done.

 

[sbell111]

... The question is, "When was the last time that El Al had an incident?" ...

It depends on your definition of 'incident'. Some would answer '2006'. Workers and passengers at LAX would quickly respond '2002'. Who knows how many attempts are made that go virtually unknown?

Still, the comparison to El Al isn't apt because they utilize additional procedures that would never be politically palatable in the US.

 

[LisaR]

It depends on your definition of 'incident'. Some would answer '2006'. Workers and passengers at LAX would quickly respond '2002'. Who knows how many attempts are made that go virtually unknown?

Still, the comparison to El Al isn't apt because they utilize additional procedures that would never be politically palatable in the US.

The 2002 incident involved a man that lived in California. He opened fired at the Elal counter at LAX. He didn't board a plane and try to blow it up. There is a huge difference.

You will have to refresh my memory on the 2006 incident because I don't recall that one. The point isn't that Elal is perfect and won't have any problems. The point is that there is a high incidence of terrorism in their country and they have managed, with stringent policies, to keep their airplanes as safe as one could possibly hope for from terrorists.

And yes, they do utilize procedures that we wouldn't do in the US. That is what I don't understand. We want safety but we don't want it at the cost of giving anything up. We feel we should be able to waltz onto any airline without any inconvenience and we should be safe. The second we are asked to take our shoes off, we start screaming that our rights have been trampled and this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

For those so opposed to any of these methods (body scans, policies similar to Elal, limiting liquids, etc) what do you propose? How do we make our planes safe and still stay within your personal comfort zone so you don't feel your rights are being stomped on?

 

[FireDancer]

I don't mind but if I get a wink and a catcall I am going home!

Doesn't it depend on who does the catcall?

One example: instead of finding yourself on The People of Walmart website, you may someday see yourself on "The Fatties of America" website.

I'm quite sure I can tell if someone is fat even without a fuzzy image of them. If someone is going to be posted on a site like that they will be photographed by one of the people around you with a camera or camera phone and it will be posted. To think that these fuzzy images that the public won't have access to will be more likely to end up online than a picture taken in public is unrealistic.

My point is that this is NOT going to save anyone, just like restricting lotions and liquids for all passengers didn't stop this particular attempt.

All these people stating, "I don't care, I don't have anything to hide, they can do it to me, I don't care, I want to be safe" are perfect examples of social engineering at its best. These people believe that by giving up their (and everyone else's) right to privacy, they'll somehow get safety in return when, in reality, there is no such thing as absolute safety.

It saddens me that generations of men and women fought and died for our personal liberties in this country and here we are ready to throw those liberties away for a "warm fuzzy" fallacy of a so-called security blanket. If this current day country morphed back to 1765, I don't see too many of us even surviving, let alone actually having the courage and determination to fight (and die) for our freedoms.

It sounds like you are saying if we can't stop 100% of all attacks we shouldn't try to stop any. Sure, no matter what you do to protect planes (or anything for that matter) someone can beat the system and cause a problem. That doesn't mean you don't attempt to stop what you can.

I would be like saying that you can still die in a car accident even if you wear a seat belt so don't bother or people still die in construction accidents even wearing a hard hat so don't bother.

There are training and consistency issues with the TSA that have to be addressed. There is the fact we seem to only think about what the terrorists will do after they fail at it instead of being proactive. There is the over reaction of policy like taking away blankets on flights or says no one can use laptops. This doesn't mean you do nothing though.

I still don't think a completely nondescript image is anything to worry about. Even if I post my own picture online you would have to take my word that it is me, you just can't tell. It would be like posting an x-ray and saying it was you, no one would tell. No one is forcing anyone to be imaged. Airline travel is completely elective. If the public is so against this and airline travel drops by 80-90% because of it perhaps it will be rethought because the airlines and many others would be lobbying for the change. If people complain and still fly then it really isn't a big enough issue for them to change their travel and they will stay. Either way is fine with me.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The 2002 incident involved a man that lived in California. He opened fired at the Elal counter at LAX. He didn't board a plane and try to blow it up. There is a huge difference.

You will have to refresh my memory on the 2006 incident because I don't recall that one. The point isn't that Elal is perfect and won't have any problems. The point is that there is a high incidence of terrorism in their country and they have managed, with stringent policies, to keep their airplanes as safe as one could possibly hope for from terrorists.

And yes, they do utilize procedures that we wouldn't do in the US. That is what I don't understand. We want safety but we don't want it at the cost of giving anything up. We feel we should be able to waltz onto any airline without any inconvenience and we should be safe. The second we are asked to take our shoes off, we start screaming that our rights have been trampled and this country is going to hell in a handbasket.

For those so opposed to any of these methods (body scans, policies similar to Elal, limiting liquids, etc) what do you propose? How do we make our planes safe and still stay within your personal comfort zone so you don't feel your rights are being stomped on?

I find that fascinating.

You are right--we are afraid to lose our liberty. And flight--really is just a privilege. IT isn't a right of the American people.

I can't say that I would be comfortable--but I don't find these things "unconstitutional".