Open letter to Disney concerning new TSA full body scan.

[N965VJ]

I would love to read your letters and hear your complaints to god when your standing at the pearly gates after just faceplanting the side of a building because the will of the people made body scans and pat downs illegal allowing some terrorist to take control of the plane and smash it

The bad guys know that hijacking is no longer a viable option after United 93, so that leaves explosives, yet the Nude-O-Scopes do not detect explosives, or see in body cavities or under folds of flesh.

Wife got the 'nude-o-scope' and a grope by Male TSA employee in MCO last week - Yes she is young and attractive.

This is NOT security this is government asserting that it has complete control over it's 'Subjects'

That screening clerk violated their Standard Operating Procedures. Please file a complaint 866-289-9673.

http://www.consumertraveler.com/col..._campaign=Feed:+tripso+(Consumertraveler.com)

I think this article makes many valid points.

In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Considering our Constitutional rights, and our safety, what do you think Franklin would say about the full body scanners?

I think Franklin would be relieved that the scanners’ privacy issues appear to be alleviated, nevertheless I think Franklin would be outraged at their use.

I think Franklin would say that TSA depending on full body scanners to make us secure, with their serious safety issues for many passengers, their innate inefficiency, and their critical shortcomings in protecting air passenger security, should “frighten to death” every airline passenger.

 

[eliza61]

The bad guys know that hijacking is no longer a viable option after United 93, so that leaves explosives, yet the Nude-O-Scopes do not detect explosives, or see in body cavities or under folds of flesh.





That screening clerk violated their Standard Operating Procedures. Please file a complaint 866-289-9673.








In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Considering our Constitutional rights, and our safety, what do you think Franklin would say about the full body scanners?

I think Franklin would be relieved that the scanners’ privacy issues appear to be alleviated, nevertheless I think Franklin would be outraged at their use.

I think Franklin would say that TSA depending on full body scanners to make us secure, with their serious safety issues for many passengers, their innate inefficiency, and their critical shortcomings in protecting air passenger security, should “frighten to death” every airline passenger.

LOL, why do we do this, why do we drag out the founding fathers as if they were some supreme deity

I would say Franklin was a dirty old man who also wrote a paper on how to keep a mistress, while Jefferson and Washington wrote a declaration of independance while keeping a boat load of slaves. And declaring freedom of religion while persecuting those that did not keep the sabbath.

Sorry, trudging out the Founding fathers as if they were some great "fathers of liberty" is laughable at best. and hypocritical at worst. they wrote a great document that they had no intention of adhering too.
Granted it was a superb document but please keep it in content, I think like many other politician of today they would have went along with the scanners lock stock and barrell.

Reminds me of the ole "what would Walt do argument". that one doesn't work either.

Once again, you do have the option of opting out and being "wand scan" personal liberty and constitution intact.

 

[sam_gordon]

For those who keep bringing out the 'Constitutional' argument (ie: the scanner violates my rights), couldn't you use the same argument in order to eliminate ALL security checks while flying? In other words, if the body scanner violates your rights, doesn't the X-ray machine? What about the bag scanner? Don't I have a "right to privacy"?

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Elisa 61

I hate to discard your flaming of the founding fathers, I need to point out that Franklyn admited to 2 long term mistresses, one into old age. I would love to read his paper, I'll have to google for it soon.

I think I would call one of the greatest thinkers of his time as a *lucky ole man*

Washington did not write the Declaration, Jefferson did, with lil help from Franklyn and others. He did it in june 76' in a hot 3 rd story room.

Jefferson and Washington both had slaves and they were well treated. All were freed, including jefferson's mistress when they died.

The keeping of the sabbath was a colony or state level law........don't blame the founding Fathers.

So before you put down those founding Fathers think about the fact they brought the 1st real liberties into the world, the first time the wonder of people governing themselves came to be and provided you with the rights that let you post what you did.

remember they put their neck in a teasonous noose, they that had the most........had the most to lose in the cry for the rights of man.

It was and still is not perfect, but it took the biggest steps toward freedom.


PS........What would Walt do?....I'll bring that out.......becuse he was amazing gifted and good Man and no one today can come close to matching his class!

To be frank, Ms Elize........that was a arrogant post .......its not a good quality to have

AKK

 

[eliza61]

Elisa 61

I hate to discard your flaming of the founding fathers, I need to point out that Franklyn admited to 2 long term mistresses, one into old age. I would love to read his paper, I'll have to google for it soon.

I think I would call one of the greatest thinkers of his time as a *lucky ole man*

Washington did not write the Declaration, Jefferson did, with lil help from Franklyn and others. He did it in june 76' in a hot 3 rd story room.

Jefferson and Washington both had slaves and they were well treated. All were freed, including jefferson's mistress when they died.

The keeping of the sabbath was a colony or state level law........don't blame the founding Fathers.

So before you put down those founding Fathers think about the fact they brought the 1st real liberties into the world, the first time the wonder of people governing themselves came to be and provided you with the rights that let you post what you did.

remember they put their neck in a teasonous noose, they that had the most........had the most to lose in the cry for the rights of man.

It was and still is not perfect, but it took the biggest steps toward freedom.


PS........What would Walt do?....I'll bring that out.......becuse he was amazing gifted and good Man and no one today can come close to matching his class!

To be frank, Ms Elize........that was a arrogant post .......its not a good quality to have

AKK

I'm not putting them down but I'm also not a fan of dragging them out like they were the "end all to be all" People drag them out as the poster children of "freedom" and arrogant or not, they did not practice "all men are equal". I thought I did say that the constitution and the declaration were both brillant documents.

So is it arrogance or just sour grapes because every one does not believe this "what would the founding fathers do" argument.
Franklin was a politician, he went with much of the status quo like many of our politicans do today. To assume he would have been in an uproar is pretty much based on some "mythical" legend we have put on the founding fathers. the is a very real chance that living in this day and time, franklin would have went with the technology like many others.

Washington kept slaves and routinely "rotated" them rom Philly back to Virginia specifically so he would not have to free them. Call it arrogant or not, but they were men of their times so if they can ignore the fact that he enslaved people, I can also go with the fact that he could have been swayed to accept the scanners.

I think it's pretty arrogant to claim all men are creating equal while enslaving an entire race of people. Your right it was a lousy quality to have.

And sorry, as a minority I did not have the "liberties" given to me, I had to have fire hoses, dog bites, lynchings and whipping to "grant" me my freedoms.

Just like people here don't particular trust the government and the TSA, I am highly critical of the "qualities" of the founding fathers.

To quote another famous American, President Harry truman
I never give them hell, I give them the truth, they just think it's hell. and whether or not you think the flaming is arrogant, these were flawed men.

 

[Hoopfamily]

Scan on, I don't care if they want to inspect my junk. Just speed it up please. Sometimes I see people try to argue the searches, the liquid rules etc. If people just did what they asked and got in line we'd have smoother more efficient screening. Additionally the screening they do is for security and safety reasons. There will always be a small number of freaky individuals who try to get jobs in positions like that so they can ogle people. Really you want to get rid of the weirdos.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

The scanners were not the point. and I agree with your point regarding todays politicans.

As I said they were not perfect but they were way ahead of their time and flatly your history was all wrong.

As to slaves and routing he did that becuase in pilly they could be free if they stayed their to all........was slavaery in any way right.of course not.

Were they right to keep slaves of course not...but he and Jefferson at least were good enought to see the right thing to do was to free them.

I have not the right to debate the terrible things that black americans went though,and even if I did, your are total correct there.

This nation was never perfect and has been figthing to win every step toward and more free society.

Arrogence is not a good quality to have, and I see now you didnt mean it but that is the way your post came across.


As to the scanner,.... My arguement here is it the way things have to be right now........when a better system for seciurtie comes out then I'll be the 1 st on line to push for it....but no one is going to risk my family becuase they want to put their own political fight ahead of others safity and that is what they are doing.



AKK

PS I am not a big

 

[eliza61]

The scanners were not the point. and I agree with your point regarding todays politicans.

As I said they were not perfect but they were way ahead of their time and flatly your history was all wrong.

As to slaves and routing he did that becuase in pilly they could be free if they stayed their to all........was slavaery in any way right.of course not.

Were they right to keep slaves of course not...but he and Jefferson at least were good enought to see the right thing to do was to free them.

I have not the right to debate the terrible things that black americans went though,and even if I did, your are total correct there.

This nation was never perfect and has been figthing to win every step toward and more free society.

Arrogence is not a good quality to have, and I see now you didnt mean it but that is the way your post came across.


As to the scanner,.... My arguement here is it the way things have to be right now........when a better system for seciurtie comes out then I'll be the 1 st on line to push for it....but no one is going to risk my family becuase they want to put their own political fight ahead of others safity and that is what they are doing.



AKK

PS I am not a big

And the beauty of this system is that NO one is being forced to go through the scanners. EVERY body has the option of alternate screening. At least in Philly, JFK, London and Paris we all had that option, and that is a very American trait, choice.

So no one should be at risk and no one should be forced to participate in some thing that makes them uncomfortable.

 

[N965VJ]

Granted it was a superb document but please keep it in content, I think like any other politician of today they would have went along with the scanners lock stock and barrell.

Not exactly:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has been among the critics of full body imaging. He previously called the imaging "TSA porn" for the revealing shots of bodies the technology produced.

For those who keep bringing out the 'Constitutional' argument (ie: the scanner violates my rights), couldn't you use the same argument in order to eliminate ALL security checks while flying?

Nobody is advocating the elimination of screening. Replacing the Nude-O-Scopes with Explosive Trace Detection portals (Puffers) would provide far better security, and would have stopped the underpants bomber.

 

[N965VJ]

My apologies; I missed this before.

Once again, you do have the option of opting out and being "wand scan" personal liberty and constitution intact.

Sorry, no. The hand held metal detector will no longer be used. The new pat down procedures, including the genital grope, have replaced that.

 

[eliza61]

My apologies; I missed this before.



Sorry, no. The hand held metal detector will no longer be used. The new pat down procedures, including the genital grope, have replaced that.

they used it last thursday in Philly. I've got a flight out this Thursday, I'll opt out of the scanner and let you know what they do. but as of a few days ago it was still in place. I did read that the airport was expecting a huge number of additonal scanners so I can believe they would phase out the wands. I fly often so I'll keep an eye out.

 

[eliza61]

Not exactly:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has been among the critics of full body imaging. He previously called the imaging "TSA porn" for the revealing shots of bodies the technology produced.






Nobody is advocating the elimination of screening. Replacing the Nude-O-Scopes with Explosive Trace Detection portals (Puffers) would provide far better security, and would have stopped the underpants bomber.

my bad didn't know we were going for an exact #. I'll edit my post to say "many" oops sorry if you look at my post #245 you will see that I did orginally say "many".

 

[N965VJ]

they used it last thursday in Philly. I've got a flight out this Thursday, I'll opt out of the scanner and let you know what they do. but as of a few days ago it was still in place.

That may be the case, but the hand held metal detectors are being phased out in favor of the enhanced patdowns. Don't forget to factor in the time required for rolling out new procedures, along with the TSA's predictable unpredictability.

 

[sam_gordon]

Nobody is advocating the elimination of screening. Replacing the Nude-O-Scopes with Explosive Trace Detection portals (Puffers) would provide far better security, and would have stopped the underpants bomber.

So some invasion of privacy is ok?

Who gets to decide the level?

 

[N965VJ]

So some invasion of privacy is ok?

ETD portals are not an invasion of privacy any more than the walk through metal detector. They are safe, non-invasive, and effective.

 

[eliza61]

That may be the case, but the hand held metal detectors are being phased out in favor of the enhanced patdowns. Don't forget to factor in the time required for rolling out new procedures, along with the TSA's predictable unpredictability.

Ahh N9, this is where you lose me. This is why I'm sooo cynical about john q public. remember how right after 9/11 every one was flag waving and screaming "we'll do whatever it takes" yea, well that lasted until we had to take off our shoes.

So let's see we want fool proof security but we want it to be super quick, non invasive, which always makes me wonder, we don't want our privacy invaded but we have no problem seriously ethically profiling passengers, go figure. , oh we also want highly trained TSA agents but we want them to work for 17 bucks an hour (which is ~34K pre tax, sorry guys that ain't living wages in a major city). we'd love bomb sniffing dogs but if airports started adding a tax to give us what we wanted we'd scream bloody murder.
currently the cost of these puppies are ~10-20K and they have to be replaced fairly often (generally after 5-7 years they are retired) and you need quite a few per airport.

Would we really be happy if we had the bomb sniffing dogs going through every passenger? or would we then start complaining aobut the time that takes? jsut an example.

 

[Hoopfamily]

So some invasion of privacy is ok?

Who gets to decide the level?

You do Sam. Get scanned and fly or don't get scanned and take a bus or train or drive.

 

[sam_gordon]

ETD portals are not an invasion of privacy any more than the walk through metal detector. They are safe, non-invasive, and effective.

I'm not talking about safety, invasiveness or effectiveness. I'm referring to those who say the new scanners are an invasion of privacy. If you're not the one claiming that (sorry, I've lost track), that's fine.

 

[Lewisc]

Ahh N9, this is where you lose me. This is why I'm sooo cynical about john q public. remember how right after 9/11 every one was flag waving and screaming "we'll do whatever it takes" yea, well that lasted until we had to take off our shoes.

So let's see we want fool proof security but we want it to be super quick, non invasive, which always makes me wonder, we don't want our privacy invaded but we have no problem seriously ethically profiling passengers, go figure. , oh we also want highly trained TSA agents but we want them to work for 17 bucks an hour (which is ~34K pre tax, sorry guys that ain't living wages in a major city). we'd love bomb sniffing dogs but if airports started adding a tax to give us what we wanted we'd scream bloody murder.
currently the cost of these puppies are ~10-20K and they have to be replaced fairly often (generally after 5-7 years they are retired) and you need quite a few per airport.

Would we really be happy if we had the bomb sniffing dogs going through every passenger? or would we then start complaining aobut the time that takes? jsut an example.

We're already paying a 9-11 security fee, really no different then a tax. Otherwise I agree with your points.

 

[mccathy]

The problem with that letter is that the original author should have stated what he wants Disney to do - He wants Disney to notify the TSA - or whoever - that they are not happy with the new security measures, that they feel it is an evision of their guests' privacy - or that it is dangerous. The letter, as written, is useless. If you plan to write a company and are looking for help you need to tell that company what you would like them to do. Companies have some big pull as far as politics go - but I'm not sure they have any influence over TSA. I think the person who started this whole open letter to Disney thing was hoping enough people would jump on board and send Disney the letter, and then Disney would feel the need to act. But like I said, the letter is flawed - it needs to state what we (the senders) expect them to do. Sadly, individuals have very little pull in what goes on in this country, but if you can convince some big companies (and big money) to get involved then some changes might happen.

I'm not going to argue about whether or not the scan is invasive or dangerous or whether or not the new pat-downs are needed.