National Opt-Out day [Archive]

Rob Oplawar

November 12th, 2010, 09:52 AM

It amounts to unreasonable search. I don't personally mind the idea of going through a full-body-scanner per se, but the fact that they want to search everybody without any reasonable suspicion really pisses me off, especially considering that the real threat is attacks like the ones that happened on 9/11, and these scanners would not have prevented that. They're not making us any safer, and they're punishing commuters. I oppose it for the same reason I oppose the patriot act. This is where I draw the line.

I don't like the idea of being unreasonably searched by scanner or pat-down, so I'm just not going to fly until they change the policy. Fortunately for me I'm in a position to refrain from flying, but there are some commuters who have to fly frequently to keep their jobs. I believe this constitutes a violation of rights, rights which cannot even be wilfully forfeited. (And while we're at it, who ever actually reads the fine print on their ticket purchase? The terms of service are deliberately made too long and too confusing to read. Given that, from a legal standpoint it may be wilful, but from a practical standpoint it sure ain't. Most people don't realize that by buying their ticket they are giving up their constitutionally protected rights against unreasonable search and seizure, among many others. And I believe there's precedent for saying that those rights cannot be contractually forfeited, although unfortunately the ultimate ruling on that lies with the courts.)

Aerowyn

November 12th, 2010, 05:06 PM

I would rather the TSA sees a glowy nondescript me then to have some greasy fat guy groping my breasts.

Kornman00

November 12th, 2010, 05:53 PM

I'm against this kind of exposure. To me, it's no different from putting some really insane protection scheme on a game: people will still end up cracking the game, you're just hurting the legit end users.

People are corruptible. Need to sneak a bomb onto a plane? Corrupt the people in between you and the plane into doing your dirty deeds! If I and other fellow passengers are being violated then airport employees of all types should be exhaustively violated with probes into their personal life and the like. After all, what good is a piracy-check in a game if it's not even being ran?

See how this begets itself? Full body scans or a full hands-on pat down are not compromises. They're just another step down in the ladder which was used to build this fucking country.

I would rather the TSA sees a glowy nondescript me then to have some greasy fat guy groping my breasts.
I'm not greasy nor fat :o)

p0lar_bear

November 12th, 2010, 06:37 PM

I think there should be an audio-enabled camera sitting at the desk of the person monitoring the screens, watching THEM. This way if they go and make any snide remarks about people under their clothes or anything... like... that... it's broadcasted for all to see so complaints can be filed. Oh, and the camera would be above the screens, pointed at the person viewing them, so we don't see what's on the screens.

I'm not greasy nor fat :o)

http://p0lar.modacity.net/images/facepalm-steam.jpg

Dwood

November 12th, 2010, 06:44 PM

I would rather the TSA sees a glowy nondescript me then to have some greasy fat guy groping my breasts.

I choose neither, personally.

Aerowyn

November 12th, 2010, 08:21 PM

I'm not greasy nor fat :o)

And yet I only sort of don't want you groping me.

sevlag

November 12th, 2010, 09:15 PM

I would rather the TSA sees a glowy nondescript me then to have some greasy fat guy groping my breasts.
im resisting the urge to make a joke here on the last part

anyways i hate flying as it is and i've never been searched, the last time i raised a fuss at the airport was when i was younger and was worried that they would do something to fuck up my gameboy color

Limited

November 12th, 2010, 09:28 PM

They have plans to put these in UK airports. They can fuck right off. I'm just going to opt out by saying they havent proved there is no long lasting medical effects. Personally I don't want them to store naked picture of me, I don't care if its crude fuzzy stuff, its all about principle...Whats next? Fully cavity searches for EVERYONE flying?

Did anyone see that thing about the pilot who refused and they called the police?

And yet I only sort of don't want you groping me.
So which part of you does :O

n00b1n8R

November 13th, 2010, 01:40 AM

I think this is a gross invasion of privacy and completely goes against the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". They have no reason to suspect the vast majority of people going through airports so what gives them the right to force a naked scan on anybody. The alternative of being felt up is no alternative at all. I can't believe there isn't a major outcry in the States over this, it's fucking dispicable.

Get the fuck over it.... its a god damn picture no one will see. Ive been through 2 and its a lot better than some fat ass copping a feel on my junk
It's the principal of it. By not objecting. you're being complicit with something morally wrong. You're putting peer pressure on others to allow it as well.

Kornman00

November 13th, 2010, 02:45 AM

Yeah, it's obvious that they have no intention of stopping. They even said it themselves: they used to use the "back hand" for patting down the naughty parts of people. Now they have fifth freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRCfiKUnDxs) on your body.

The gloves keep coming off. What ever happened to "no glove, no love"? Travelers should have rights and protections.

And yet I only sort of don't want you groping me.
looks like someone's gotta have...

their korn pops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjkSUZu24sA) :caruso:

paladin

November 13th, 2010, 04:46 AM

Kornman00

November 13th, 2010, 05:59 AM

Give me liberty, or give me death.

How long the scanner takes is not the issue. The incursions on people's privacy is. This idea of "security" is just another way that terrorist acts cause propagating attacks on our own freedom, long after their original straw broke our camels back.

They appose our culture. So what better way to destroy it than from within, with a single domino?

sevlag

November 13th, 2010, 08:46 AM

as long as they can't see my ruined sperm count brought on by years of caffine ingestion then im okay with it

thehoodedsmack

November 13th, 2010, 09:40 AM

I'm seeing the slippery slope argument used in here a bit. Just because you acquiesce to a blurry, gross-looking x-ray doesn't mean you'll be fine when they say "let's make them strip in front of a panel of judges". There's really no reason to think that implementing this security system will be the downfall of all your freedoms.

n00b1n8R

November 13th, 2010, 10:12 AM

we'll have two type of planes. Ones that have security screenings and ones that dont. When those that refuse to walk through a scanner that takes literally 3 seconds, you can enjoy blowing up on an airplane.
There's security screening (we've had this for years) and then there's unjustifiable invasion of privacy. This is the latter.

Rob Oplawar

November 13th, 2010, 12:49 PM

This does sound like a slippery slope argument and to an extent it is, but in the typical slippery slope fallacy comes from the fact that there is no trend to justify the projection. In this case there is a very clear trend. Airport security has been getting steadily more extreme for the past decade. If in 2002 you noted the increase in security and said "next thing you know the security will force everybody to be patted down or have naked x-rays taken of them", it would have sounded like a slippery slope fallacy. Yet here we are.

There's very little evidence that the increasingly invasive security screening has any deterrent effect. In fact, there's very strong evidence that any coordinated, intelligent terrorist can get around it easily, and those are and always have been the real threat. It's doubtful that further invasion of traveler privacy will have any significant preventative effect. The money and effort is better spent elsewhere; in the meantime, the increased security at airports is only giving people more reason to be upset with the direction this country is taking.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057

Llama Juice

November 13th, 2010, 01:19 PM

Meh, if they asked me to get naked and walk through it I'd be fine with it.

But then again, everyone else would feel inadequate afterward.

Hell, I might just get naked and walk through it to see if the picture comes out less fuzzy for them.

Kornman00

November 13th, 2010, 04:22 PM

Just because your comfort level is really, really tolerant doesn't mean the rest of the American population feels the same. As an American, you should be thinking about the rights to everyone, not just yourself. Think constitutionally, not personally.

Hell, maybe if we're lucky, you'll magically get testicular cancer from your naked escapades with the security's all-seeing-eye. Maybe then you'll start to think, "hmmmm, maybe this isn't so 'meh' after all".

Rob Oplawar

November 13th, 2010, 04:53 PM

And again, it's not about comfort level even if all of America were comfortable with it. I don't find anything unpleasant about answering questions for a police officer, and I don't blame him in the slightest if he searches me because he suspects I'm concealing a weapon I might use. But if there were cops stopping and searching every single person who approached campus, I would have a problem with that. And guess what? It's illegal for them to do that; constitutionally you have the right to refuse search unless the authorities have a good reason to suspect that you in particular are concealing something illegally. The airports get away with it because when you buy your plane ticket there's a little tiny piece of fine print that says you basically waive all rights to privacy, in addition to giving them authority to seize and destroy your baggage without justification.

I think it's questionably legal, but that's not the point of my protest- I'm not a stickler for the law. I'm a stickler for my moral principles, and I think these searches are morally wrong and ineffective to boot.

Rob Oplawar

November 13th, 2010, 05:24 PM

How about an analogy. How many of you have ever driven a car? Cars are similar to airports in this regard: They constitute a mode of transportation that is increasingly essential and unavoidable in people's lives, which is heavily regulated by the government. You could build your own car, but good luck getting it registered as street-legal, and you're not allowed to drive an unregistered vehicle on public roads. Nearly everybody needs to drive somewhere at some point; the existence of this kind of transportation has made cities become far more decentralized than they otherwise would have been, such that where people used to be able to walk or ride bicycles, now it is no longer a viable option. I'm just trying to make the point that for many people, while they technically have a choice about driving a car, from a practical standpoint there is no choice; they simply have to drive, and the only thing they can drive is this vehicle which is heavily regulated by the government.

Ok, let's pretend now that a group of terrorists decided to buy some cars, fill them with explosives, and drive them off strategically chosen overpasses onto the densest parts of a city's main highways during rush hour, killing hundreds of people in massive flaming pileups and crippling the city's transportation infrastructure. This was inarguably a terrible tragedy, warranting an unprovoked invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the attack (I digress). The government now decides that all highways in the United States must be retrofitted with cameras that transmit images of the interiors of all passing cars to a central monitoring organization which will watch out for suspicious drivers. Further, all cars must support this program; if the camera cannot clearly see the driver, the passengers, and the luggage, a squad car will be dispatched to intercept it so it may be searched. This program, it is said, will prevent further attacks. But you and I can see that it drops unreasonable suspicion on 300 million Americans when it fewer than a hundred people in the country are worthy of that level of surveillance. We can see that this program is extremely expensive to local and federal governments, not to mention auto manufacturers (who then pass the cost on to everyone else in the form of car prices and taxes). And worst of all, we can plainly see that this program is completely impractical and has very little chance of success.

Subsequently, some disgruntled idiots get sick of their jobs and try to emulate the previous attack, planning to fill their cars with explosives and drive them off an overpass. One of these idiots is caught buying hazardous materials. Another chickens out and turns himself in. Yet another makes it all the way to the highway before he is pulled over and arrested for expired plates. All of these people were idiots, and were caught because they were idiots. But none of them were caught by the surveillance program, and instead of taking that as a sign of its inefficacy, the regulatory committee elects to tighten the program's security. Now all major highways must have checkpoints placed at all entrances, where incoming cars must pass close inspection to see if they contain evidence of explosives. This causes huge inconvenience to drivers, costs a huge amount of money, and still does not successfully prevent terrorists from sneaking a bomb onto a crowded highway. So the program is increased again; now we have powerful x-ray machines that will inspect the contents of all passing cars as they drive onto the highway. We're told that these machines, despite being powerful enough to penetrate into the interior of the car, pose no health threat to passengers. They're insanely expensive, they put every single driver under extremely close surveillance, and they still have no hope of stopping a smart terrorist.

The cars and highways were constructed by private companies. When you buy a car, you sign the fine print that gives up your right to refuse search of the vehicle, and when you drive onto the highway you implicitly agree to allow these privately owned companies to x-ray the hell out of you and pull you over for whatever reason they like. But if you don't like it, well, then don't drive. You have a choice, and they're not doing anything illegal here.

Ok, so this analogy does not constitute a valid logical argument. But, I think it illustrates the point I'm coming from. I don't care so much if people can see my face when I drive, and if it really is safe I'm not uncomfortable with being x-rayed. It's not about that. It's about the Big Brother syndrome, the fact that the government is becoming unreasonably suspicious of its millions of citizens, the vast majority of whom have never even committed a misdemeanor. And it's wasting billions of dollars to do so. And it's not even having any perceptible effect in terms of safety.

thehoodedsmack

November 13th, 2010, 05:46 PM

The car analogy is not very good. Use a bus instead.

Buses are places where people are packed tight, and would undoubtedly cause fear in the hearts of citizens if they felt they could no longer safely use public transit. Someone could easily sneak a bomb onto a bus.

Yet there's no pre-boarding screening for the bus.

Which got me thinking that the core reason for airline screening has to do with:

a) The number of people that use airplanes

and secondly, and most influentially:

b) Protecting the interests of the airline companies.

Y'know, they probably don't want to risk any chance of losing their multi-million-dollar aircraft.

Maybe we're over-thinking this.

Dwood

November 13th, 2010, 05:51 PM

Let pilots carry weapons so they can defend themselves so the plane doesn't get hijacked.

=sw=warlord

November 13th, 2010, 06:03 PM

Let pilots carry weapons so they can defend themselves so the plane doesn't get hijacked.

Haven't they already made it so the cabin is sealed so that only the cabin crew have access to the cabin door?
Why not have the airports uses sniffer dog's sniffing about for the scent of explosives, If i remember correctly nearly all the common explosives have a scent of some kind, I mean, they use sniffer dogs all the time looking for drugs and it seems to be working pretty well.

Dwood

November 13th, 2010, 09:38 PM

Haven't they already made it so the cabin is sealed so that only the cabin crew have access to the cabin door?

Not really.... At least on the planes I last flew in, all passengers had access to the door into the cockpit.

Why not have the airports uses sniffer dog's sniffing about for the scent of explosives, If i remember correctly nearly all the common explosives have a scent of some kind, I mean, they use sniffer dogs all the time looking for drugs and it seems to be working pretty well.

It takes twice the intelligence to be utterly retarded. While America was researching an amazing new writing device and spending millions to get pens that work in space... the Russians used pencils.

Limited

November 13th, 2010, 09:59 PM

Yeah um, wasn't there a study that found out the body scanners do not actually improve security at all. Plus if we can opt-out, surely a terrorist can opt-out too. Making it completely pointless.

=sw=warlord

November 13th, 2010, 10:09 PM

Not really.... At least on the planes I last flew in, all passengers had access to the door into the cockpit.
Well that in it self is irresponsible, seriously.
There's some airlines over here which made this a standard.

It takes twice the intelligence to be utterly retarded. While America was researching an amazing new writing device and spending millions to get pens that work in space... the Russians used pencils.
So Basicly instead of taking the easy and simple route around the problem, your airlines are being a complete bunch of useless tools and avoiding the pink elephant in the room.
Go figure..

Yeah um, wasn't there a study that found out the body scanners do not actually improve security at all. Plus if we can opt-out, surely a terrorist can opt-out too. Making it completely pointless.

Ah and the Darwin award goes to, US Airlines.

thehoodedsmack

November 13th, 2010, 10:37 PM

I didn't think the scanners were about improving security, I thought they were put in place to make things more efficient.

Whenever I go through an airport, they make me first walk through a metal-detector, then scan parts of my body with a metal-detector-stick, and pat down certain areas like pockets and such. I thought the point of these machines was to take a quick body-scan and keep the lines moving.

paladin

November 14th, 2010, 01:21 AM

Dwood

November 14th, 2010, 01:40 AM

Its completely justified by 9/11, the Christmas day attempt, and what currently is happening with printer cartridges. Flyings not a right, its a privilege, you forfeit certain freedoms in order to participate.

You think the Patriot act is a good thing, don't you?

So Basicly instead of taking the easy and simple route around the problem, your airlines are being a complete bunch of useless tools and avoiding the pink elephant in the room.
Go figure..

Airlines? It's not the airlines that dictate our 'security' at airports. If anything, the airlines wouldn't be doing anything like this that's inhumane (and really, really bad PR) not just to the people but to the people who look at the naked bodies all day.

That said, It's the federal beauracracy we call the TSA Transportation Security Association or whatever it's called that's doing this.

Kornman00

November 14th, 2010, 02:02 AM

Its completely justified by 9/11, the Christmas day attempt, and what currently is happening with printer cartridges. Flyings not a right, its a privilege, you forfeit certain freedoms in order to participate.
Uhhh, printer cartridges have nothing to do with full body scans, hth. Also, UPS packages weren't being scanned until AFTER they arrived in the US.

The 'Christmas day attempt' was from a flight which was being flown internationally from Amsterdam. Been a while since I last took a look at a map, but if I recall, Amsterdam doesn't reside in the US. So full-body-scans in the US would have no help for flights originating outside the US. hth too. Further, that joe who couldn't even light his knickers on fire was even suppose to be a person of interest (albeit, not yet placed on the no-fly list), yet nothing was done about that. Try reading Rob's The Atlantic link .

Start to see a pattern here? 2/3 of your arguments are about international incidents which a full-body-scan would have no help whatsoever in stopping.

paladin

November 14th, 2010, 04:28 AM

You've missed my point: Every person, every piece of luggage, every piece of cargo needs to be scanned no matter what airport or country it comes from. I don't care if your naked.

Bodzilla

November 14th, 2010, 06:17 AM

=sw=warlord

November 14th, 2010, 08:10 AM

You've missed my point: Every person, every piece of luggage, every piece of cargo needs to be scanned no matter what airport or country it comes from. I don't care if your naked.

Congratulations, You've just proven that the terrorists have won, They've done their job and they've gotten you worried to the point of wanting to impose your own opinions induced by your own fear on others.:golfclap:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Sel

November 14th, 2010, 09:32 AM

Its completely justified by 9/11, the Christmas day attempt, and what currently is happening with printer cartridges. Flyings not a right, its a privilege, you forfeit certain freedoms in order to participate.

http://wonkette.com/430118/tsa-says-its-irresponsible-to-legally-opt-out-of-porno-cancer-scanners

Funny, because the last “OH MAH GOD TERRORISTS GETTING US” freakout was, we believe, over toner cartridges shipped by UPS. And, uh, the 9/11 hijackers could’ve all been patted down, greased up, anally probed, photographed for Playgirl and sucked off by a chorus line of TSA cretins and that still wouldn’t have made a difference in 2001.

It's definitely not justified by 9/11, and shipping flights are entirely unrelated, so I don't see what your point is.

There is no reason for these to exist, and I will stand by that without considering the positive effects these might have, until there's some assurance that some disgusting tsa dickhead won't be jerking off to my xrays, should I ever visit the US, and that the scanners are entirely safe, as opposed to now where they douse you in a disgusting amount of radiation.

sleepy1212

November 14th, 2010, 09:56 AM

they're gonna put these scanners everywhere, just wait. and they couldn't care less that it's not going to catch actual terrorists because they don't know who actual terrorists are. Right now our idiotic government includes "talks about the constitution" on a list of how to identify potential "terrorists". In other words, this has nothing to do with terrorism at all.

thehoodedsmack

November 14th, 2010, 11:38 AM

Here's some realistic scenarios regarding the full-body scanners:

Passenger 1

Security: Would you please step through the scanner, sir?

[Passenger steps through body-scanner]

[After a several second intermission, Security receives an indication the passenger is clear]

Security: Thank you sir, please move along.

Passenger 2

Security: Would you please step through the scanner, sir?

[Passenger steps through body-scanner]

[After a several second intermission, Security receives a notification of an object in Passenger's back pocket]

Security: Sir, we've identified an object in you back pocket, would you please remove it and step through the scanner again?

Passenger: I'm sorry, I forgot I had [object] back there.

[Passenger steps through body-scanner]

[After a several second intermission, Security receives an indication the passenger is clear]

Security: Thank you sir, please move along.

Terrorist with Explosive Device

Security: Would you please step through the scanner, sir?

[Terrorist steps through body-scanner]

[After a several second intermission, Security receives a notification of an object in Terrorist's back pocket]

Security: Sir, we've identified an object in you back pocket, would you please remove it and step through the scanner again?

[Terrorist becomes anxious and refuses to do the scan again]

[Security calls for additional help]

Security: I'm sorry sir, but without a clear from these scanners, we cannot allow you to fly. Please remove the object or step out of the line.

[Terrorist either leaves, is arrested, or detonates device, killing fewer people and causing no damage to aircraft.
So what was the problem, again? If you start thinking about what this actually is, an attempt to make airport security more efficient, and stop thinking it's some first-step towards big-brotherhood, some gigantic affront to your liberties, then you may feel a little silly. Paladin's right in the regard that flying is not a necessity of travel. Use video conferences, or take the train. Trains are cool.

Rob Oplawar

November 14th, 2010, 12:48 PM

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

You don't understand, some people literally have to fly. My dad, for instance. He has to be in Houston half the time and in Denver the other half, because his job requires it. I'm not going to get into an argument over the semantics of "choice". From a practical standpoint, this is the way it is. Many people will lose their jobs if they do not fly frequently.
And fuck me, what I wouldn't give to be able to take the train. We don't have an effective commuter rail system in the midwest. And as for buses? I enjoy the privilege of living in a city with a fantastic bus system. Many people don't.

Your "terrorist" scenario above is contrived. That terrorist would have been caught by other means, because he is an idiot. Meanwhile, a terrorist with a brain has teamed up with several other terrorists to bring all the components they need for building a bomb in separate carry-ons, disguising them as innocuous electronics and toiletries, and they swim through security without raising any suspicion.

Look, here are the two reasons these scanners are too much for me:

One: This is a matter of principle. I don't believe you can pick and choose when your ethical standards apply and when they don't. I think that airport security is an example of "guilty until proven innocent", which I am morally opposed to no matter where the fuck it comes from, private or public, legal or not.
Two: This is a matter of practicality. Airport security is inconvenient and extremely expensive, and by the very laws of information theory it can never be completely effective. This is true of any sort of security; there's always a way around it, so the point of security is to make it too hard to be worthwhile. But in the case of terrorists, it's never too hard to be worthwhile, and so this form of security is worthless. The money and effort is much better spent catching terrorists before they can launch an attack or preventing the formation of terrorist groups in the first place.

One final point: Not that I'm saying that terrorist attacks aren't tragic disasters that should be respected, but I think people have an extraordinarily biased view of just how serious a threat this is. There are a mind-boggling number of airliners in the air at any given second, and the number of completely uneventful flights compared to the number of flights that have suffered a terrorist attack is astronomical. The amount of effort spent on airport security is completely out of proportion to the threat of terrorism versus the threat of other tragic disasters. Like I said, the money and effort is better spent elsewhere.

thehoodedsmack

November 14th, 2010, 01:13 PM

=sw=warlord

November 14th, 2010, 01:17 PM

thehoodedsmack

November 14th, 2010, 01:28 PM

Then the benefits of efficiency still apply.

Kornman00

November 14th, 2010, 06:25 PM

Unless the majority of Americans opt-out every time because they oppose this method of "security".

Limited

November 14th, 2010, 07:09 PM

I thew in the terrorist example only for the sake of covering all the major angles. You're right, a smart terrorist wouldn't be caught, but I never said that these machines represented an increase in security, but a streamlining of it. They'll save time, which saves money, which could then perhaps be allocated to effectively deter terrorist acts, if they wished.
All angles? How about this...

Security: Miss, please step into the body scanner, you have been randomly selected.

Lady: I'm not completely comfortable with what the body scanner does, I'd like to opt out.

Security: Opt out?..okay

[Security guard turns to other TSA officers]

Security: WE GOT AN OPT OUTTER!!!!

[Security chief person walks over to the lady.

Security: You're going to have to come with us.

[Lady walks to a different area]

Security: You realise if you opt out, you have to be padded down. We will grab and touch your breasts and genitalia.

[Lady starts asking them questions]

[Security did not like this, so they handcuffed her to a chair]

Lady: I want to speak to your supervisor

[Security calls in 12 police officers.]

[Security lecture her for 30 minutes on terrorism whilst she was still handcuffed]

[Lady cries and sobs alot]

[Security rip her ticket in half]

[An hour later, police officers drag her out of the airport in only a tshirt and jeans, no shoes or jacket, in freezing winter temperatures]

Oh, by the way, that ^ really happened only a few days ago...
http://www.africanaonline.com/2010/11/airline-passenger-meg-mclain-violated-by-tsa/
http://wewontfly.com/meg-mclain-cant-get-home

Not only is the security systems in place total bullshit, its being run by low life ignorant fools who have no regard and respect for human beings.

Oh yeah by the way... A recent article in the San Diego Entertainer on August 31, 2010 stated that “the scans are detailed enough to identify a person’s gender… to identify a passenger’s surgery scars, or to discern whether a woman is on her menstrual cycle or not.".

Oh and they are dangerous, we are being lied to about how much radiation they put out, they have the possibility of causing cancer and DNA damage.

thehoodedsmack

November 14th, 2010, 07:23 PM

I think you know that I meant the major angles.

I certainly don't support what happened in your linked article, and really that has nothing to do with the scanners, but with the people operating them.

Objectively, from a security standpoint, these scanners are a great idea to speed up checkpoints. The problem lies with the people using them.

Limited

November 14th, 2010, 07:29 PM

As for "a glowy nondescript picture"...try inverting the picture, then we'll see how fuzzy and nondescript it really is and remember, they can produce high quality images.

Donut

November 14th, 2010, 07:31 PM

limited, i read the article you posted, and according to the comments this is apparently a huge exaggeration by the woman in question. this is the video of the incident youre talking about.
trQp6V8dx7A

from the comments on that article:

The bottom line is, her story doesn’t add up and seems to be just sensationalized nonsense. There are plenty enough reasons to be against the TSA’s policies and procedures, without having someone invent a fictionalized account to incite the masses. Now that it’s pretty obvious she was (at best) exaggerating her claims, it’s easy for the other side to say “They can’t even find a real reason to be against this so they have to make stories up”. It’s a frustrating distraction from the real issue of privacy violation, presumed guilt, and the effectiveness of the security screenings.

n00b1n8R

November 14th, 2010, 08:50 PM

I certainly don't support what happened in your linked article, and really that has nothing to do with the scanners, but with the people operating them.

Objectively, from a security standpoint, these scanners are a great idea to speed up checkpoints. The problem lies with the people using them.
But that's a major point of opposing this process. Objectively, from a practicality standpoint, these things are operated by Human Beings and as such, are just as susceptible as anything else when it comes to being abused. The key difference being that the alternative authorises officers to be sex offenders.

Even people who have been proven guilty of crimes arn't subjected to that sort of (authorised at least) loss of dignity. Nobody here has justified this system morally yet.

Limited

November 14th, 2010, 09:40 PM

But that's a major point of opposing this process. Objectively, from a practicality standpoint, these things are operated by Human Beings and as such, are just as susceptible as anything else when it comes to being abused. The key difference being that the alternative authorises officers to be sex offenders.

Even people who have been proven guilty of crimes arn't subjected to that sort of (authorised at least) loss of dignity. Nobody here has justified this system morally yet.
This, and the fact there is no third option, you either have to be scanned with the porno scanner, or you get groped. Personally I would opt out of the scanner, I try to avoid getting radiated, however I am not happy with any of the choices, I don't want to get groped either.

Kornman00

November 15th, 2010, 12:07 AM

I wonder what kind of security measurements the future commercial space programs will have :ugh:

paladin

November 15th, 2010, 01:55 AM

You can always opt out of flying....

Also, whats the point of that video.... its just a girl crying

Dwood

November 15th, 2010, 03:36 AM

You can always opt out of flying....

No, we can't. Don't be so obtuse.

sleepy1212

November 15th, 2010, 08:45 AM

You can always opt out of flying....

"Stay home. Do not travel"

don't forget, terrorists have hit trains and buses and they use cars too. they also like to run into crowded buildings and detonate themselves. where's your opt-out when there's body scanners on the doors at walmart?

Llama Juice

November 15th, 2010, 11:33 AM

When I was in San Francisco they had airport style security in front of a jewish history museum.

Anyhow, I agree with Paladin... the airlines don't "owe" you anything. You're trying to just use their service so you play by their rules.

I agree that these scans are actually fairly useless.. but I think everyone is just kinda overreacting about it. It seems like everyone is all up in arms about the naked pictures that they can store. Why exactly does this bother you? Are you afraid that these pictures will get leaked to the internet? And if so... do you think there will be a huge demand to see your horribly blurry fuzzy picture of your butt rather than just normal porn?

I dunno. I'm assuming these scans will get better over time and will be able to take higher quality images so that they're actually useful for their intended purposes. If so then it's a win for everyone except for those people who are terrified of the security guard seeing your pee pee.

Honestly it'd be more awkward for me to work the little booth watching the people walk through the scanner than it would to walk through it. I wouldn't be able to take my job seriously if I was being paid to watch naked people all day.

Rob Oplawar

November 15th, 2010, 12:22 PM

It seems like nobody is even reading what I have to say. It is not the idea of being exposed by scanners that has me upset. In fact, it's super-nice that they can streamline the security process at the airport.

You know how they could better streamline it? Don't assume that every person who gets on a plane is a threat.

Instead of trying to restate my point yet again, I'll just encourage you to go back and actually read it.

I find it interesting that half of the posts in this thread are people saying "quit your bitching, flying is a privilege not a right" while the Halo: Reach thread is almost 100% complaints about what Bungie is doing wrong with that game. Does anybody else find that painfully ironic? We can vocally complain that a software company did not produce a videogame to our exact specifications, but when we try to make a point about unreasonable coercion by an essential industry which millions of people depend on for work travel, half of the responses say we're making a big deal over nothing.

thehoodedsmack

November 15th, 2010, 01:59 PM

It's not ironic at all. Some people may be giving that impression, though. Nobody honestly expects Bungie to update the game to their specifications. But without vocalizing concerns and opinions, improvements wouldn't be made next time. Just the same with what's happening here: people are voicing their opinions, for and against, and I think we've all at least developed an understanding of how these machines could be implemented more wisely. If a formal review of the scanners was implemented, then public opinion such as ours (related, not directly from), would hopefully be taken into consideration.

Are you against security searches entirely, Rob? You say they shouldn't assume everyone who boards a plane is a threat, but these are expensive machines. I know that if I owned a plane, I would want to be completely sure that everyone on board had been checked out.

Dwood

November 15th, 2010, 02:09 PM

I wonder what kind of security measurements the future commercial space programs will have :ugh:

Oh man.

Dwood

November 15th, 2010, 02:11 PM

W
Anyhow, I agree with Paladin... the airlines don't "owe" you anything. You're trying to just use their service so you play by their rules.

It's not the Airlines that's running the security! It's the TSA which is run and administrated by the Federal Government!

=sw=warlord

November 15th, 2010, 02:12 PM

Are you against security searches entirely, Rob? You say they shouldn't assume everyone who boards a plane is a threat, but these are expensive machines. I know that if I owned a plane, I would want to be completely sure that everyone on board had been checked out.
Reasonable searches are perfectly fine but unreasonably searching every single person who boards every single time is not only time time-consuming, expensive but is also extremely unreasonable.
The machines maybe expensive but that's why they have insurance policies not to mention the 9 figure annual profit.

Rob Oplawar

November 15th, 2010, 02:41 PM

http://gizmodo.com/5689759/tsa-full+body-scanners-protecting-passengers-or-padding-pockets
Read this. It is the latest of many such articles which summarizes the relevant facts.

I was just remarking on the relative frequency. Reach: lost of bitching, and a post or two of me pointing out that the bitching seems a bit excessive. Opt-Out Day: 50-50 split between "this seems unreasonable" and "you are unreasonable for thinking it's unreasonable". You know what gets me the most about it? It's that so many people don't care. We are willfully wasting money and sacrificing personal rights because we are all terrified of being attacked on an airplane, even though the odds are much MUCH greater that you will be murdered on the street by some thug. You know what I call that? Successful terrorism.

Bodzilla

November 15th, 2010, 03:05 PM

Donut

November 15th, 2010, 03:54 PM

You can always opt out of flying....

Also, whats the point of that video.... its just a girl crying
did you read the article limited posted about that woman being handcuffed to a chair, groped, ticket ripped, thrown out, etc...? the video i posted is the security footage of the situation in question proving that the article was a gross exaggeration of what really happened.

Llama Juice

November 15th, 2010, 04:42 PM

@Rob. Honestly I'm one of the people that really just don't care.

Let me tell you why.

The airline security stuff has always just been a huge joke to me. I know it doesn't make me more safe, I know it doesn't prevent terrorism, and I know that the actual chances of being part of a terrorist attack are extremely slim to begin with.... but that's not really what any of this is about. It's all about the ILLUSION of safety. The fact that these things are here to make us feel more safe.

Clearly they're not doing their job since it's causing such a ruckus, but there still is something where I do feel safe once I get past the security thing at the airport. I don't know why exactly, but when you get past those lines and scanners and stuff it just feels... "cleaner" to me. Is spending heaps of cash on an illusion a horrible idea? Probably, but at the same time if they were to create this big device that would make it less likely for terrorists to get in the airports and the TSA disapproved it, there'd be a big hubub about that too saying that the TSA doesn't care about our safety and that Obama is a terrorist.

Nobody is ever happy when it comes to stuff like this. I just look at it as their honest attempt to make our experience legitimately more safe. I don't see them treating me like I'm a criminal ever when I fly... and so that whole guilty until proven innocent thing is a bit of an exaggeration.

It's just like nearly everything else in life. If you go through with a smile on your face and you have a good time with it then you're not going to have any problems. If you walk into the situation afraid of it and hating on it, you're going to be miserable.

I feel like nothing I just said was really coherent. My apologies.

n00b1n8R

November 15th, 2010, 06:20 PM

We are willfully wasting money and sacrificing personal rights because we are all terrified of being attacked on an airplane, even though the odds are much MUCH greater that you will be murdered on the street by some thug. You know what I call that? Successful terrorism.
Reposting this.

@Rob. Honestly I'm one of the people that really just don't care.

So you're so apathetic about your own personal rights you don't care if they're taken away for no good reason? Didn't one of the US founding fathers have something to say on that?

The airline security stuff has always just been a huge joke to me. I know it doesn't make me more safe, I know it doesn't prevent terrorism, and I know that the actual chances of being part of a terrorist attack are extremely slim to begin with.... but that's not really what any of this is about. It's all about the ILLUSION of safety. The fact that these things are here to make us feel more safe.

Bolded that for emphasis. You admit that from a practical stand point, it's a waste of time/energy/money.

Clearly they're not doing their job since it's causing such a ruckus, but there still is something where I do feel safe once I get past the security thing at the airport. I don't know why exactly, but when you get past those lines and scanners and stuff it just feels... "cleaner" to me. Is spending heaps of cash on an illusion a horrible idea? Probably, but at the same time if they were to create this big device that would make it less likely for terrorists to get in the airports and the TSA disapproved it, there'd be a big hubub about that too saying that the TSA doesn't care about our safety and that Obama is a terrorist.

However that's no the case :ugh:

Nobody is ever happy when it comes to stuff like this. I just look at it as their honest attempt to make our experience legitimately more safe. I don't see them treating me like I'm a criminal ever when I fly... and so that whole guilty until proven innocent thing is a bit of an exaggeration.

Being subjected to authorised sexual assault is how a law abiding citizen should be treated?

It's just like nearly everything else in life. If you go through with a smile on your face and you have a good time with it then you're not going to have any problems. If you walk into the situation afraid of it and hating on it, you're going to be miserable.

Poor English aside, I'd rather see the world for what it is and be miserable than to live in a lie. I accept that that's personal opinion though.

I feel like nothing I just said was really coherent. My apologies.

Bodzilla

November 15th, 2010, 08:29 PM

Reposting this.

and you guys wonder why i heart this guy.:rape:

paladin

November 16th, 2010, 01:50 AM

itt, i'm scared and paranoid that an isolated number of people have changed my entire perspective on my safety and that of others so i'm going to radically change everything.

But they're didnt win, i'm just "more prepared" for unforeseen consequences.

We wouldnt need airport security if we just glassed every nation that harbored extremists. but no, that would violate their human rights...

At least let the TSA profile...

No, we can't. Don't be so obtuse.

Yes you can. eg John Madden. You dont have to fly if you dont want. Its that simple. If you don't fly, your sacrificing NONE OF YOUR FREEDOMS. Theres security for a reason. Once again, flying is not right no matter how you try and put it in any context. When you choose to fly vs a train, bus, auto, or boat, your opting yourself into these security programs so that you can enjoy the leisure of getting to your destination faster. If your so gd worried about some random person wiping their hand past your balls or too paranoid about radiation, take the train, drive your car, or just fucking walk there.

n00b1n8R

November 16th, 2010, 02:17 AM

Yes you can [go without flying]. eg John Madden. You dont have to fly if you dont want. Its that simple. If you don't fly, your sacrificing NONE OF YOUR FREEDOMS. Theres security for a reason. Once again, flying is not right no matter how you try and put it in any context. When you choose to fly vs a train, bus, auto, or boat, your opting yourself into these security programs so that you can enjoy the leisure of getting to your destination faster. If your so gd worried about some random person wiping their hand past your balls or too paranoid about radiation, take the train, drive your car, or just fucking walk there.

Are you deliberately ignoring Rob's posts ?????

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

You don't understand, some people literally have to fly. My dad, for instance. He has to be in Houston half the time and in Denver the other half, because his job requires it. I'm not going to get into an argument over the semantics of "choice". From a practical standpoint, this is the way it is. Many people will lose their jobs if they do not fly frequently.

In the modern world, plenty of people literally need to fly.
Madden is rich enough to do what he likes. Most people can't afford that luxury.

paladin

November 16th, 2010, 02:34 AM

Get a different job if you cant come to grips with the accommodation.

annihilation

November 16th, 2010, 03:14 AM

That post gave me cancer.

Here in California there is a law that prohibits use of a cell phone while in a vehicle all because a couple idiots don't know how to multi task. "Hurr, just walk if you don't like it. Driving is a privilege not a right." Guess what. It's not that. A lot of people use cars to get from point A to point B. The only reason we put up with it is because there really is no other alternative.

This scanner situation is no different. It's the TSA fucking everyone over because they can. Don't worry! You don't have to go through the scanner if you think it's an invasion of privacy! You get the option to get molested by some middle aged guy!

Whether it is a right or not doesn't really matter. It's the principle of it all that does.

Fuck that. This kind of thing should not be happening.

n00b1n8R

November 16th, 2010, 03:22 AM

Here in California there is a law that prohibits use of a cell phone while in a vehicle all because a couple idiots don't know how to multi task.
As in just the driver or anybody in the car?

annihilation

November 16th, 2010, 03:27 AM

Driver.

n00b1n8R

November 16th, 2010, 05:07 AM

Driver.
Seems reasonable vOv
That's been law here for around a decade and it's never been an issue.

annihilation

November 16th, 2010, 05:40 AM

'Twas a bit of a big deal here. To the point where they had to have police actaully crack down on it because no one was obeying it.
No one here can drive anyways.

Dwood

November 16th, 2010, 05:41 AM

Seems reasonable vOv
That's been law here for around a decade and it's never been an issue.

If he had said "seatbelt laws" for people above 16, I would have agreed with him. But I don't want anyone T-Boning me because they were texting//chatting on the phone. But imo those laws are more liability laws that don't get enforced however in a lawsuit if the person was on the phone/not wearing their seatbelt they were violating laws and have a harder time prosecuting/defending themselves in court.

n00b1n8R

November 16th, 2010, 06:32 AM

Without being too hypocritical, back ontopic!

sleepy1212

November 16th, 2010, 08:32 AM

more like "back to page one" because this thread just keeps rehashing the same point over and over again :/

take the train, drive your car, or just fucking walk there.

"Stay home. Do not travel"

don't forget, terrorists have hit trains and buses and they use cars too. they also like to run into crowded buildings and detonate themselves. where's your opt-out when there's body scanners on the doors at walmart?

=sw=warlord

November 16th, 2010, 08:42 AM

We wouldnt need airport security if we just glassed every nation that harbored extremists. but no, that would violate their human rights...

AHAHA:neckbeard:, No.
You realize a fair few of the extremist's are also domestic, by your logic you may as well wipe yourselves out while you're at it.

If your so gd worried about some random person wiping their hand past your balls or too paranoid about radiation, take the train, drive your car, or just fucking walk there.
I've yet to see a train that can travel under the Atlantic ocean to different continents, or a car that can drive to said continent's in a reasonable time.
Also, good luck walking on water to France from Texas.
You're being ignorant for the point of being ignorant.

Rob Oplawar

November 16th, 2010, 10:29 AM

Now you're opening yourself up to paladin coming back with "take a boat!" :rolleyes:

We could put aside the moral outrage for a moment and take a look at airport security as an industry instead. The companies that make these machines are making big bucks... onoes, anybody who makes lots of money must be a badguy! ok, you got me there. but still. The point is, at best it's an enormous waste of resources and time, on the part of the airports, the TSA, and the travelers. I won't go so far as to say "they" (whoever they are) deliberately maintain public fear of attack in order to increase "their profits", but I will say this: the American public is irrationally (but understandably, given 9/11) terrified of attack via airplane, and for whatever motive the TSA is spending a fuckton of money to appease that fear.

DarkHalo003

November 16th, 2010, 04:54 PM

=sw=warlord

November 16th, 2010, 05:41 PM

If it keeps people safe, no matter how outrageous it might be (IN THIS CASE), then people just need to deal with it. If it keeps bombs and crap from blowing people up, then I fail to see why people bitch about this so much. Just saying here.
Because it doesn't keep anyone safe.
The scanners only affect people traveling from within the US, it won't help for anyone from any other country.

paladin

November 16th, 2010, 06:07 PM

Because it doesn't keep anyone safe.
The scanners only affect people traveling from within the US, it won't help for anyone from any other country.

Dubai International Airport, the largest airport in the Middle East and Africa, has rejected the use of full body scanning technology due to the ethical concerns the scanners raise within Islamic culture.
In Europe, full body scanners are being evaluated at a handful of airports in Finland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, and Italy. As in the US, the use of body scanners has raised privacy and health concerns in the EU. In fact, the UK has banned the use of body scanners on children under 18.
In Asia, full body scanners are being tested or installed in Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea, yet significant privacy concerns remain.
In North America, Canada has begun installing full body scanners at airports, but there are currently no plans to deploy body scanners in Central or South America.
google.

Now you're opening yourself up to paladin coming back with "take a boat!" :rolleyes:

We could put aside the moral outrage for a moment and take a look at airport security as an industry instead. The companies that make these machines are making big bucks... onoes, anybody who makes lots of money must be a badguy! ok, you got me there. but still. The point is, at best it's an enormous waste of resources and time, on the part of the airports, the TSA, and the travelers. I won't go so far as to say "they" (whoever they are) deliberately maintain public fear of attack in order to increase "their profits", but I will say this: the American public is irrationally (but understandably, given 9/11) terrified of attack via airplane, and for whatever motive the TSA is spending a fuckton of money to appease that fear.

I agree that spending money on security measure like so are ridiculous when there are way more efficient ways to secure our ports. I wouldn't mind not having these is the TSA was allowed to profile or if countries could demonstrate better to extremists 'dont fuck with us'.

DarkHalo003

November 16th, 2010, 07:13 PM

Because it doesn't keep anyone safe.
The scanners only affect people traveling from within the US, it won't help for anyone from any other country.
There are still terrorists and ill-acting people within the U.S. I wasn't just referring to people outside of the country.

Necr0matic

November 17th, 2010, 11:31 AM

When terrorists bombed NYC, people were outraged at the lack of extensive security tests in airports. Now, people are calling it an invasion of privacy. Please make up your mind.

=sw=warlord

November 17th, 2010, 01:15 PM

When terrorists bombed NYC, people were outraged at the lack of extensive security tests in airports.

That is what we call a "Knee-jerk" reaction.

There are still terrorists and ill-acting people within the U.S. I wasn't just referring to people outside of the country.

Said people would probably have the resources to call on attacks from external sources.

Donut

November 17th, 2010, 07:00 PM

If it keeps people safe, no matter how outrageous it might be (IN THIS CASE), then people just need to deal with it. If it keeps bombs and crap from blowing people up, then I fail to see why people bitch about this so much. Just saying here.
well the counter argument to that (and to most other airport security too tbh) is that if any one person is bringing a bomb with them, theyre going to get caught, scanner or no scanner. the idea here is that these things are only really effective at stopping one person operations. i forget who said it before, but what happens when you get a somewhat organized group of people to each bring separate components to make an explosive? the scanner, and probably most other security, isnt going to stop that.

p0lar_bear

November 17th, 2010, 07:14 PM

Long story short: airport security exists to scare idiots into not doing stupid things while complicating the hell out of things for everyone else, while being unable to stop organized terrorists.

DarkHalo003

November 17th, 2010, 07:28 PM

well the counter argument to that (and to most other airport security too tbh) is that if any one person is bringing a bomb with them, theyre going to get caught, scanner or no scanner. the idea here is that these things are only really effective at stopping one person operations. i forget who said it before, but what happens when you get a somewhat organized group of people to each bring separate components to make an explosive? the scanner, and probably most other security, isnt going to stop that.
Well it's not like the Security isn't going to look for stuff like that; they have a list of items that CANNOT be brought with them, not to mention people must empty their pockets. If any of the measures we had before the full-body scanner are still in place, then I seriously doubt a group of people (which will be viewed as individuals) will make it on the plane with different formulas and components of a bomb. Unless they created a bomb that's utilized nano-technology and they bring in items that would have gotten past the recent security anyways, I don't see the problem in the full body scanner.

Cortexian

November 17th, 2010, 10:45 PM

There is already at least one of these things at Calgary International, to my knowledge they siphon random people off the customs ques to go through it if they wish. It's faster than the standard que system so most people don't have a problem with it.

Ours also seals for a few seconds, puffs some air on you and analyzes it for chemical compounds or something. Not sure if yours do that.

sleepy1212

November 18th, 2010, 09:03 AM

Ours also seals for a few seconds, puffs some air on you and analyzes it for chemical compounds or something. Not sure if yours do that.

more like DNA sampling from loose skin cells :tinfoil:

Corndogman

November 18th, 2010, 04:39 PM

I'm gonna be honest, I didn't read this whole thread, but I'll just put in my 2 cents.

The husband of one of my college professors is an engineer for one of the companies that make these scanners (L3 Communications) and he came and spoke to our class the other day. He was able to clear up a lot of questions and concerns. Something that should be noted is that these scanners vary with what company produces them. He told us the ones by L3 do not give off any harmful radiation, though others may. Also that his company implements a system in their software so that the images don't show any "definition." They only show you as a a human shaped blob, and any foreign objects will show bright red. You don't have to worry about pictures of your genitals ending up on the internet.

However not all the airports have the same devices, so there may be cause for concern for some of them, I'm just telling you what I know. The airports around me (Tampa, Miami, etc.) are good to go as far as I'm concerned.

annihilation

November 20th, 2010, 01:39 AM

What they need to do is ditch the TSA and hire private security.

ThePlague

November 20th, 2010, 01:49 AM

Llama Juice

November 20th, 2010, 02:58 AM

Yea, it's always tough to trust a salesman. Their job is to convince you that their product is awesome.

That being said, I believe him.

Kornman00

November 21st, 2010, 08:13 AM

More fuel for the fire: TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/)

Aerowyn

November 21st, 2010, 10:09 AM

You can always opt out of flying....

We wouldnt need airport security if we just glassed every nation that harbored extremists. but no, that would violate their human rights...

Honestly Paladin, the more you post, the crazier you come off as.

Yeah, it's SO EASY for us to just drop a nuke on every country in the world that harbors extremists.... because all you'd have to do is drop a nuke on EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. There are extremists of all shapes and sizes everywhere. We have christian extremists, black extremists, white extremists, all here in America. People just like YOU, Paladin, who thinks the only way we can be safe is if we destroy everyone that comes off as a threat to us. It is lunatics with your kind of thinking that made these invasive pat downs warranted in the first place.

At least let the TSA profile...
Yes because we all know how racial profiling is such a blessing.... :raise:

You wouldn't be saying that if you happened to be a muslim who had to submit to an enhanced pat down EVERY TIME YOU FLY. You're taking your "white male" privileges for granted. Profiling is never right. Not ever.

You dont have to fly if you dont want. Its that simple. If you don't fly, your sacrificing NONE OF YOUR FREEDOMS. Theres security for a reason. Once again, flying is not right no matter how you try and put it in any context. When you choose to fly vs a train, bus, auto, or boat, your opting yourself into these security programs so that you can enjoy the leisure of getting to your destination faster. If your so gd worried about some random person wiping their hand past your balls or too paranoid about radiation, take the train, drive your car, or just fucking walk there.

This is what Paladin recommends if you want to visit your family overseas:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c183/Lady-Aerowyn/swimlol.jpg

Dwood

November 21st, 2010, 05:48 PM

Strip searching young children. What is this America

XSQTz1bccL4

PenGuin1362

November 22nd, 2010, 01:48 AM

Get rid of both and everyone stop being so damn paranoid. Done.

ICEE

November 22nd, 2010, 02:35 AM

Strip searching young children. What is this America

XSQTz1bccL4

This right here is fucking sickening.

Also welcome back to modacity we missed you

Timo

November 22nd, 2010, 02:45 AM

Jeez, and I though NZ was bad enough for heckling tourists for bringing certain foods into the country :/ What the crap did that guy expect to gain by patting down a kid?

ICEE

November 22nd, 2010, 03:07 AM

an erection.

sleepy1212

November 22nd, 2010, 08:44 AM

At least the UK is getting the shaft too, my cousin just flew in out of Heathrow with her kids and she said it was horrible. and get this, all the security people were muslim. all of them...lol

dark navi

November 22nd, 2010, 09:54 PM

but daddy took his shirt off :ohdear: not the TSA

paladin

November 22nd, 2010, 10:18 PM

Honestly Paladin, the more you post, the crazier you come off as.

Yeah, it's SO EASY for us to just drop a nuke on every country in the world that harbors extremists.... because all you'd have to do is drop a nuke on EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. There are extremists of all shapes and sizes everywhere. We have christian extremists, black extremists, white extremists, all here in America. People just like YOU, Paladin, who thinks the only way we can be safe is if we destroy everyone that comes off as a threat to us. It is lunatics with your kind of thinking that made these invasive pat downs warranted in the first place.

Yes because we all know how racial profiling is such a blessing.... :raise:

Profiling works. Instead of being caught up in this PC bullshit, we could save literally billions of dollars if it were't for group and people like you that demand to board a flight without a screening, but then are the firsts to demonize the TSA for not catching a terroist. Its called being proactive. Profiling if proactive, these scanners and pat-downs are reactive.

And plain and simple, if we were allowed to antiquity use force against those who oppose or threaten us, we wouldn't need to have nearly the level of security that we do. Instead, we have Al Qaeda laughing their asses at us right now. They spend $4200 on a print cartridge bomb and we respond with a multi-billion dollar security program that's unnecessary. We should have responded with an increase in drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They should fear us, not vice versa.

You wouldn't be saying that if you happened to be a muslim who had to submit to an enhanced pat down EVERY TIME YOU FLY. You're taking your "white male" privileges for granted. Profiling is never right. Not ever.

Profiling is done everyday, the TSA should have to hide from it. Get the fuck over equal rights bull shit.

This is what Paladin recommends if you want to visit your family overseas: {lol omg google maps}
Dont be so fucking brusque. There are many available ships for you and PC friends to travel on. heres one youll enjoy. (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XuzRr24xxoc/SoN5YjIt_LI/AAAAAAAAADk/IEkxNoboxlM/s400/Cuban+Raft+While+Mutton+Spearfishing+002.jpg)

This (http://book.cunard.com/find/pb/searchResults.do?subTrade=ENU&duration=2&ship=&date=0411)is cheaper than my airfare to Copenhagen.

Your the reason why we have to have these system.

Rob Oplawar

November 22nd, 2010, 10:31 PM

Your the reason why we have to have these system.

I'm very tempted to make a snide remark here, but I'll try to take the high ground. I disagree with almost every single thing you have said so far, and I have already given my reasons. I think I have already addressed what you've said in this post, so I won't restate my points. If you won't make an attempt at a reasoned reply, then I won't bother paying attention to you any more.

paladin

November 22nd, 2010, 11:36 PM

No! I desperately need the attention and approval of your one-sided opinion. What ever will I do without it?

Bodzilla

November 23rd, 2010, 01:24 AM

i've got a fair idea. continue on in life with your deluded and insane tunnel vision.

bout time other people started to realize how retarded you are.

=sw=warlord

November 23rd, 2010, 03:51 PM

So let me get this straight paladin because you've lost me.
You're all for your "American rights", Your "constitutional rights" and yet you believe that these rights to personal privacy are being waived justly because you honestly think this will send the correct message to the extremist?

I'm not sure if I'm alone in this thought but I'm wondering something;
How is this helping at all?
It's been proved that these check's are severely disrupting the civilian population much more than the extremist's who reside in said population.
do you know what all of this reminds me of?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhsvmY3Q9cY

E:
Funny how this reminds me so much of PHD Glenn beck of today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b9vqIL6Shc

paladin

November 23rd, 2010, 06:05 PM

Ive said it before and now again. The security processes that in place now are useless and wasteful. There are far more efficient ways to safely operate air travel.

Also, you can profile without it being racially motivated for those against it.

n8K41iPx2Z8

Say what you want about beck. Ive made well over $10000 because of him

Aerowyn

November 23rd, 2010, 06:59 PM

Profiling works. Instead of being caught up in this PC bullshit, we could save literally billions of dollars if it were't for group and people like you that demand to board a flight without a screening, but then are the firsts to demonize the TSA for not catching a terroist. Its called being proactive. Profiling if proactive, these scanners and pat-downs are reactive.

No, profiling DOESN'T work. Just like stereotypes. Not all hispanics are illegals, not all muslims are terrorists, not all blacks are criminals, but I guess that doesn't matter to you because you'd rather believe that everyone that looks different than you is a threat to society as you see it.

No one here is saying that airports don't need security or screening measures to sniff out potential threats. What we ARE saying is that there are surely better ways to do so without such a blatant invasion of privacy (like seeing you naked or touching your privates, and potentially seeing you naked THERE too). The phrase is "innocent until proven guilty," not the other way around.

And plain and simple, if we were allowed to antiquity use force against those who oppose or threaten us, we wouldn't need to have nearly the level of security that we do.
I take it you don't remember Pearl Harbor, do you? We sort of NUKED Japan for that.

If we launched attacks on every country we don't like (which to you, seems to be every country ending with -istan), who is to say that they wouldn't retaliate on us? America is not the only country with nuclear weapons. For you to think that no one would DARE shoot one off at the grand US of A is just foolish. Or is this more of a "destroy them before they destroy you" sort of thing?

Instead, we have Al Qaeda laughing their asses at us right now. They spend $4200 on a print cartridge bomb and we respond with a multi-billion dollar security program that's unnecessary.
Hey funny, because I am sure they are laughing at us for being SO AFRAID of them that we have to practically strip search every man, woman, and child that steps foot in an airport. These ridiculous measures only show that the terrorists have won.

We should have responded with an increase in drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They should fear us, not vice versa.

You are insane. Honestly. The fact that you have no regard for other cultures or people other than yourself is alarming to me. "BLOW THEM ALL UP AND MAKE THEM AFRAID OF US" is not a legitimate strategy.

Honestly, Paladin, sometimes I feel genuinely concerned about you. Sometimes.

Timo

November 23rd, 2010, 07:01 PM

Isn't profiling more to do with the person's body language, not their race...?

Aerowyn

November 23rd, 2010, 07:07 PM

Isn't profiling more to do with the person's body language, not their race...?

I've never heard of "body language profiling." Anyone can look nervous or uncomfortable as some stranger puts their hands in-between the person's legs. :P

Timo

November 23rd, 2010, 07:25 PM

That's how it generally works down here - people are chosen out of the crowd while going through customs/picking up bags etc. to undergo extra screening (patdowns etc). It's more about drugs than bombs though.

Bodzilla

November 23rd, 2010, 08:45 PM

Z5Pr31H6Wus
well we had the shoe and underpants bomber, it's just a matter of time until we have the rectal cavity bomber.

Lets be proactive people

Aerowyn

November 23rd, 2010, 09:12 PM

God Bod I wish I could +rep you.

Not only does being proactive prevent terrorism, but it also cures my acne!

http://simplystacie.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/proactiv.jpg

ICEE

November 23rd, 2010, 10:08 PM

Isn't profiling more to do with the person's body language, not their race...?

Actually, theres a few things they pick up on, body language being one of them. My buddy is white, but sort of tan and he keeps a full beard. If he doesn't shave before getting on the plane, he gets "random screening" every time.

Also, amazing vid bod

paladin

November 23rd, 2010, 11:25 PM

You guys sure complain a lot, ut have not really explained how you want security ran. Please... enlighten.

Limited

November 23rd, 2010, 11:55 PM

No, profiling DOESN'T work. Just like stereotypes. Not all hispanics are illegals, not all muslims are terrorists, not all blacks are criminals, but I guess that doesn't matter to you because you'd rather believe that everyone that looks different than you is a threat to society as you see it.Do you even understand what profiling and stereotypes are? They are statistical likelihoods. I don't necessarily agree with either, yet they arent just randomly thought up. They try to screen by looking at what the previous evidence shows. If a rapest always wears a brown bomber jacket with a blue hat. Police will approach any one wearing a brown bomber jacket with a blue hat, and speak with them, ask for ID etc...basically checking they arent the offender.

Same applies to profiling, yes not EVERYONE will be, but they generalise, but they are generalising to try and help out. Although I do feel sorry for the people that always get checked, because of the profiling. But surely if they are innocent, they should think. Oh, I'm going to go along with it, no fusses, to help prove that 'my profile' arent what police assume.

paladin

November 24th, 2010, 12:05 AM

Thank you for your comment, limited, sadly it will be rejected due to its high level of logic. Have a nice day.

my question still stands: for those of you against scanners, against pat-downs, and against profiling, how do you propose we efficiently secure our ports?

sleepy1212

November 24th, 2010, 08:02 AM

I am against big brother scanners, state sponsored rape, and assuming everyone is a terrorist. I'm not against profiling...certainly not in the logical statistical sense. the PC idiocy against profiling stems from the high probability of who there terrorists will likely be....OMG BROWN PEOPLE!!!! Just because we're most likely looking for someone of a certain race does not mean profiling = racism. We saw this in immigration law. very stupid.

paladin

November 24th, 2010, 06:32 PM

Woaw, ya'll sure do know how to protest. Just got off the phone and my sister said she made it through security faster than normal. Nice job.

ICEE

November 25th, 2010, 02:50 AM

im sorry paladin but how the fuck do you justify your sister's experience to us? "yeah uh I have a friend who said this worked"

paladin

November 25th, 2010, 04:02 AM

It doesnt have to be justified by anyone. wasnt the point of the protest to prolong the security screening process, creating overly long lines? to create hassle on a day that already is? Its not just this, look at any news site covering the "protest". It was a sham. I think Ace Cooper sums it up perfectly adding the opt out day to his ridicuList (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/24/ac.tsa.ridiculist.cnn?iref=allsearch)

e: I should add, my sole intent rub the pitiful failure in your faces.

Way to opt out of opt out day.

Also, my queston still stands: Whats your solution to securing our ports?

Kornman00

November 25th, 2010, 09:01 AM

=sw=warlord

November 25th, 2010, 10:00 AM

Also, these devices do jack shit for our ports...when they're just used inside the fucking country. Commercial airlines aren't the only way to terrorize communities, as terrorists have proven with their would-be printer bombs being shipped from overseas to here.
Strategically speaking , A bomb on a train could do just as much,if not more damage than one on a plane.
With a train, you have to take into consideration that there is barely much security at all plus those train lines are used for both transportation of goods as well as ferrying people about.
There's also the factor many train lines travel underground causing even more problems for rescue teams.
If this was at all designed to enhance security at all, train stations would have them as well.

Aerowyn

November 25th, 2010, 10:44 AM

e: I should add, my sole intent rub the pitiful failure in your faces.

I just want to clarify something to you, Paladin. If your sister went through a nude-o-scope, of COURSE she got through faster, because people were OPTING OUT OF THE SCANNERS. Holy shit, duh.

Secondly, you do realize that you should be rubbing it in the faces who actually were flying out somewhere and chose to opt out, right? I don't recall anyone in this thread saying, "YEAH, I AM TOTALLY GOING TO MY AIRPORT TO OPT OUT HAHA." This thread was not to organize this Opt Out Day protest, it was to discuss the significance of it and have a debate about airport security. Your gloating is somewhat misplaced.

Plus it makes you look really stupid. Just saying. :)

How about this question: How do you solve world peace?
Killing everyone that isn't America is his answer to world peace I'm sure. XD

Also, these devices do jack shit for our ports...when they're just used inside the fucking country. Commercial airlines aren't the only way to terrorize communities, as terrorists have proven with their would-be printer bombs being shipped from overseas to here.

And what would stop a terrorist from boarding a plane in, say, Germany, wait until it flies close to the US, hijack it, fly it into something else. Patting down AMERICANS in AMERICA does not make us any safer from terrorists, there's always another angle.

Plus, if a terrorist wanted to kill Americans here in an American airport, he could strap explosives to his body and EASILY wipe out MORE PEOPLE in an airplane terminal than he could on a plane without going through a body scanner.

Just sayin.

sleepy1212

November 25th, 2010, 10:50 AM

Woaw, ya'll sure do know how to protest. Just got off the phone and my sister said she made it through security faster than normal. Nice job.

At least the UK is getting the shaft too, my cousin just flew in out of Heathrow with her kids and she said it was horrible. and get this, all the security people were muslim. all of them...lol

My personal anecdote > your personal anecdote

ICEE

November 25th, 2010, 02:18 PM

It doesnt have to be justified by anyone. wasnt the point of the protest to prolong the security screening process, creating overly long lines? to create hassle on a day that already is? Its not just this, look at any news site covering the "protest". It was a sham. I think Ace Cooper sums it up perfectly adding the opt out day to his ridicuList (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/24/ac.tsa.ridiculist.cnn?iref=allsearch)

e: I should add, my sole intent rub the pitiful failure in your faces.

you missed my point entirely. My point was "why should we believe you?"

paladin

November 25th, 2010, 02:34 PM

GTFO of the Midwest?

How about this question: How do you solve world peace? Just because you introduce a seemingly relevant question doesn't make it relevant. The major point of this debate isn't about the illusion of security that these devices and hands-on pat downs bring. It's about people, their rights and abuse of power.

Also, these devices do jack shit for our ports...when they're just used inside the fucking country. Commercial airlines aren't the only way to terrorize communities, as terrorists have proven with their would-be printer bombs being shipped from overseas to here.

I my point is, nearly everyone in this dump is against everything that is currently used or has been proposed. They haven't once said what they'd like to see or how they'd operate security. It just adds to my point that all they do is complain about every thing. See FB to recall.

My personal anecdote > your personal anecdote

Curse you!

http://image.odinseye.org/images/alhakimsha.jpg

you missed my point entirely. My point was "why should we believe you?"

Don't. i made the whole thing up. I dont even have a sister.

p0lar_bear

November 25th, 2010, 07:25 PM

Don't. i made the whole thing up. I dont even have a sister.

If you're going to troll the thread, get out.

Thanks.

Teltaur

November 25th, 2010, 07:42 PM

Well, isn't this interesting? Opt-Outers may be labeled as "Domestic Extremists" (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010)

Under the new labeling procedures, those who choose to opt-out or are perceived as being troublemakers will be detained, questioned and processed for further investigation:
It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1220886590914.shtm) division of the Department of Homeland Security.

n00b1n8R

November 26th, 2010, 08:56 AM

You guys sure complain a lot, ut have not really explained how you want security ran. Please... enlighten.
Re-read the thread and make more coherent posts.

Kornman00

November 26th, 2010, 09:19 AM

Funny, last I checked opt-ing out is a peaceful act. So how is it that people exercising their right to assemble for and/or just protesting these scanners is automatically 'domestic extremism'? It's not like we're throwing the fucking xray machines into the fucking river like the Boston Tea Party. Oh wait, that is considered OK since that was part of the American Revolution. Silly me, and here I thought this was something about freedoms, or at least, American freedoms.

If I wanted to forfeit my freedoms, I would have stayed in the military. At least then I wouldn't have to deal with these scanners while hitch hiking on Space-A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_A)s (unless that's changed too).

sleepy1212

November 26th, 2010, 10:47 AM

Curse you!

http://image.odinseye.org/images/alhakimsha.jpg

oh christ...time to put scanners on the interwebs :cop:

Opt-Outers may be labeled as "Domestic Extremists"

Homeland Security: Labeling innocent Americans as extremists since 2001. 1,000,000 and counting!

Bodzilla

November 26th, 2010, 10:36 PM

Well, isn't this interesting? Opt-Outers may be labeled as "Domestic Extremists" (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010)

There is no defence for that statementl.
that is one of the biggest loads of shit i have ever read.

Cortexian

November 28th, 2010, 07:24 PM

I literally got onto a plane with a folding hunting knife last year, the entire case was plastic and I guess it was either small enough to not set off the metal detectors or someone fucked up.

I noticed that I had it on me after I was putting my shoes back on, asked the customs agent what I should do and she just took it from me and said I could get it back when I came home. I didn't expect to see it back again but it was actually really easy to get back from customs. It was taken from me at my local airport and returned at the same place so I guess that helps, doubt it would have been possible to have it added into my checked baggage at that point if I needed to take it.

I don't really have a point to this story, except maybe that airport security still slips up. That said, I know a huge amount of the security supervisors and Police (we have a Police division dedicated to our airport) at our local airport really well. They have a Bagpipe and Drum band that I used to play with, I've never gotten hassled at security.

DarkHalo003

November 28th, 2010, 11:03 PM

Wow, this thread is probably the craziest I've seen it go since the Mosque one I shamefully fueled political election of 2008 thread. Just saying

People should just honestly not bitch so much about this. If you have nothing to hide (considering what the hell is the concern over the possibility of some asshole posting pictures of your probably general body scan online) then just walk through the freaking scanner. That's all I really have to say about the scanner itself.

The pat-down stuff is a load of bullshit though. I was at DC this past week and basically the closest people got to a pat-down for security at Capital Hill or EVEN THE WHITE HOUSE was just the Metal Detecting Wands, which do their jobs very well. We also have these new body scanners which are supposed to find the bad stuff anyways, so why even implement the pat-downs to begin with? The option is simply stupid in the first place. If you don't want to go through the scanner then you shouldn't be allowed on the plane. That should be a part of the terms of usage rules or whatever airlines have as a liability check for fliers. That way no one can honestly bitch and we're all good. And I really don't think the argument saying that this scanner violating privacy should be taken seriously at all; if someone with ill-intent were to use that card and get on the plane, would you still take that same argument? Probably not.

paladin

November 29th, 2010, 01:07 AM

Ceramic knives FTW (https://www.yoshibladeknives.com/?mid=547806&a=55959&s=1&ClickID=11_296107289_450291ef-f3c9-4baa-9c89-2301dea6e0b5)

Headline: Airplane brought down by the Yoshi blade.

Anderson: Well I guess it really can cut anything.

Rob Oplawar

November 29th, 2010, 02:41 PM

... You do realize that actually detracts from your argument rather than supporting it, don't you? They thought metal detectors made us safe, until people realized they could use ceramic knives. So now they have these scanners which detect ceramic knives... but are still easily defeated by other means.

There's always going to be a way to sneak some sort of dangerous object past whatever fancy security you have in place, so all you're doing by scrutinizing people more closely is pissing people off (which makes it more likely that someone will want to sneak in a weapon, imho).

Kornman00

November 29th, 2010, 03:52 PM

Like the analogy I was trying to make with publishers using crazy amounts of or ridiculous types of software "protection" that ends up getting cracked anyway: it only ends up hurting the legit users.

paladin

November 29th, 2010, 05:36 PM

I only posted the mighty yoshi blade cause I was watching late night tv and saw the commercial and thoght "I should try and bring this on a plane". It had nothing to do with what ever I said in the past. /literal thinking

also, korn :colbert:

Llama Juice

November 29th, 2010, 07:33 PM

I'm not for these things anymore. Not that I have any problem walking through them personally, but all the stories I've read on people who go through the scanners, then get pulled aside because of different health issues that are showing up on the scanners.

I saw one where a woman with a prosthetic breast ended up having to remove her prosthesis after going through the scanner because the TSA Agent felt her up and asked what her fake boob was.

There was another where a guy who has some sort of problem with his bladder or something, basically has a bag taped to his side that collects urine in it. Went through the scanner, got pulled aside and they forced him to be pat down. He told the TSA agents several times to not touch his bag because it will break the seal and urine will pour down his side, but they ignored him and after they broke the seal they let him go and he got the privilege to catch his flight with urine leaking down his side.

As a white male who doesn't have any weird health complications or anything this stuff doesn't bother me. Its not just people with "something to hide" that get harassed by this, it's cancer survivors and grandparents and people that already go through life with complications too.

A lot of that can be solved by better training and such, but as of right now it's just unacceptable.

Limited

November 29th, 2010, 08:01 PM

[stuff]
I agree, the people that do have medical problems and are being pulled to the side due to the scanner are getting awful treatment. If you do have a protetic part on your body, okay fair enough you probably will get questioned about it. But that should be it, end of. Not being harassed even more by "proving its real by removing it" or some other BS.

TSA need to employ a professional doctor at each security check location, they need the ability to look up patients files (so they can see evidence of the persons medical problem), and along with friendly questioning the issue can be resolved.

paladin

November 30th, 2010, 02:14 AM

sleepy1212

November 30th, 2010, 08:39 AM

TSA need to employ a professional doctor at each security check location, they need the ability to look up patients files (so they can see evidence of the persons medical problem), and along with friendly questioning the issue can be resolved.

that's pretty creepy...better add a database of piercing salons to that because terrorists wear nipple rings:

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-03-28/us/nipple.ring_1_piercings-metal-detector-mandi-hamlin?_s=PM:US

side note: I wonder how long it is before TSA "catches" a terrorist?

Rob Oplawar

November 30th, 2010, 10:16 AM

That's a serious invasion of patient privacy, and the sad thing is it sounds exactly like the sort of thing the TSA might do.

Llama Juice

November 30th, 2010, 01:21 PM

The TSA said that there are cards that you can get saying that you have a prosthesis, so I guess those people have to go through and apply for that card and then most TSA agents still won't understand it and want to fondle the fake boobies.

No no, the TSA agents aren't monsters or anything, they're just following orders so they can feed their family and such. The system is new, it needs some kinks ironed out.

That way, it will be less... Kinky.
:caruso:

Limited

November 30th, 2010, 02:29 PM

The TSA said that there are cards that you can get saying that you have a prosthesis, so I guess those people have to go through and apply for that card and then most TSA agents still won't understand it and want to fondle the fake boobies.
Over here we are given documentation to show officials when security like this is involved. My friend has a metal hip, he shows the documentation and then they take him aside and wand him down, and then wand his hip to make sure thats the only metallic area.

Also, how is my doctor idea, any different to the doctors in hospitals today? They look up medical notes right now.

thehoodedsmack

November 30th, 2010, 04:30 PM

Also, how is my doctor idea, any different to the doctors in hospitals today? They look up medical notes right now.

It could be difficult checking records of foreigners flying through American airports. For example, whenever I visit my grandparents in Florida, I fly out of Buffalo as opposed to Toronto, because it's vastly cheaper.

It might work for nationals, but anyone who's visiting the country may have difficulty when they can't immediately pull up their health records.

Aerowyn

November 30th, 2010, 06:36 PM

that's pretty creepy...better add a database of piercing salons to that because terrorists wear nipple rings:

From that article:

"In the future, TSA will inform passengers that they have the option to resolve the alarm through a visual inspection of the article in lieu of removing the item in question."

Allred pointed out that TSA's Web site says passengers with piercings can undergo a pat-down inspection if they do not want to take their piercings out -- an option she said Hamlin was never offered.

So.... what happens to girls with clitoris piercings? If a girl doesn't want to spread her legs and reveal that sort of thing to a TSA agent.... she can get a good old fashioned cunt rub? And a guy with a prince albert can opt to not dangle his twig and berries in the face of a TSA agent and opt for a free handjob?

This just gets more and more depraved. Honestly. That isn't respectful of the person with the piercings because no matter how you slice it, someone's STILL going to either A) see you naked in some respect, whether it be breasts or otherwise, or B) get felt up.

Can't wait until the TSA needs to probe a woman's vagina to make sure she didn't stick any C4 up in there. With a camera. Mounted to an agent's penis. Derp.

Kornman00

November 30th, 2010, 06:59 PM

Heh, and soon they come to find out that the line coming out of some woman's slit isn't her tampon's release line, but actually a bomb's ignition fuse

annihilation

November 30th, 2010, 07:02 PM

http://harmful.cat-v.org/security-theater/_imgs/tsa-pedobear-logo.jpg

Bodzilla

November 30th, 2010, 08:40 PM

oFVNbPuyrXk

TVTyrant

December 1st, 2010, 08:35 PM

Honestly, back in 04 Bill Maher had the most convincing solution: Fly at Your Own Risk Airlines.

At FYORA you can have your cheap pocket, only go through a minor number of screenings (like a basic bag x-ray and thats it), pay for your tickets in cash, and get on your fucking plane to wherever you need to go. If a terrorist attacks, I would believe that the majority of the flyers would ALSO have sharp objects, and would thus butcher the. I carry a knife. I know many people who do IN THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES. Quite honestly, the whole airport security thing is un-fucking believable.

Aerowyn

December 1st, 2010, 09:55 PM

Heh, and soon they come to find out that the line coming out of some woman's slit isn't her tampon's release line, but actually a bomb's ignition fuse

Posts like this are the reason I want the +rep system back.

Timo

December 1st, 2010, 11:03 PM

4zFi18ioqYk&

This blonde bombshell wearing just black lace, a pearl necklace and a white dog is Tammy Banovac, a retired surgeon in a wheelchair. She got down to her lingerie while going through airport security and still got a pat down. Twice.

Dr. Banovac always refuses to go through the metal detector. She has to use a metal wheelchair and that means that she always gets a pat down no matter what. Lately, she says she feels violated because the pat downs have become increasingly invasive during the last few months. "If it happened anywhere else, it would have been sexual assault," she declared to a local newspaper.

She was so angry with the situation that she decided to change things. On November 30, the 52-year-old arrived to the Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City en route to Phoenix, wearing just a trench coat. When it was time to pass through the check point, she took off her coat, stripping down to her black lace lingerie. She hoped that, by showing that she had nothing to hide, she would not be hand-searched.

Sadly for her, things got worse: The perspicacious TSA agents wanted her to go through the metal detector, anyway. When she understandably refused, they decided to give her a pat down.

At this point, the quick-witted TSA agents said they found traces of nitrate on her body. Banovac claimed that it was probably her medication or a result of a hunting day. However, since it's obvious that the retired surgeon could be a secret Al-Qaeda terrorist carrying a bomb somewhere in her lace bra or panties, the astute TSA officials subjected her to a one-hour hand-search and interrogation. Yes, one hour.

As a result, she missed her flight to Phoenix and had to return home.

But hold on, because it gets even more surreal: She returned the next day and the same thing happened. She got down to her lingerie and got a hand-search anyway. This time, however, she could make her flight on time.

If this is not an example of everything that is fucked up with the TSA, I don't know what is.

:||

TVTyrant

December 1st, 2010, 11:19 PM

Im sorry for bing an insensitive asshole, but that has got to be the funniest thing I've read in my life :lmao:

Kornman00

December 1st, 2010, 11:57 PM

Posts like this are the reason I want the +rep system back.
And here I am, one of the reasons why the system was turned off :santa:

Im sorry for bing an insensitive asshole, but that has got to be the funniest thing I've read in my life :lmao:
Unless you're just laughing at her disability, I don't think you're being an insensitive asshole :o). She was trying to make a statement, she did it with her bra and underwear (oh and dog...wonder if it got a pat down too), and a very blank face (kind of spooky actually, plastic surgery?). She exposed how much further the bullshit iceberg lies...by exposing herself. "My phone can't go thru the scanner fast enough" :giggle:

Dwood

December 2nd, 2010, 12:19 AM

I don't even know what to say to this guy:

Oh, and a big thank you for fighting for your right to take away MY RIGHT for safe travel.

I thought we had already proven that these procedures don't make us any safer? They're just more invasive.

How many people drive in a car every day? Then, think about how many die in car crashes every single year. Now compare it to the number of planes that fly every single day, and the number of people that die on planes because of a terrorist every year.

There's a far, far less likelihood of a plane being targeted as a means of attack than people dying in car crashes. You're more likely to die from a guy driving along in a car while drunk slamming into you my friend.

You're also assuming that the only way for terrorists to hurt and kill people is via a bomb on a plane. As well as that the only way people with ill intent can get on planes is via one from inside the country. We aren't any safer with these new restrictions than with the old ones we had 6+ months ago. (before the whole "No collars" deal, I was forced to remove my shirt because of that last time I went through)

Tell that to 9/11.

ICEE

December 2nd, 2010, 12:20 AM

What's really fucked up about this: they could have passed her through the metal detector, and then searched her chair. Its obvious that the chair is what would set it off.

TVTyrant

December 2nd, 2010, 12:29 AM

Whats really fucked up is that they were targeting a person in a wheel chair. Have you ever been in a wheelchair? Its not exactly a comfortable experience, thats for sure. There is always the feeling that your legs are not properly adjusted, so you move them. It would be almost impossible to be a terrorist pretending that you are in a wheel chair. They would notice and pop cap in your ass instantly, especially f you were brown, had an Osama beard, and were wearing a turban.

sleepy1212

December 2nd, 2010, 08:36 AM

they're not idiots they're perverts.

=sw=warlord

December 20th, 2010, 03:30 PM

Heathen

December 20th, 2010, 10:48 PM

Lol, they are so incredibly useful.

Cortexian

December 22nd, 2010, 05:14 AM

Yea, scanners are really useful when the person operating them is bored as fuck. Both the scanner operator and the man with the gun should be punished, someone stupid enough to forget they have a loaded firearm with them should not be allowed to carry. Sorry.

=sw=warlord

December 22nd, 2010, 08:45 AM

Yea, scanners are really useful when the person operating them is bored as fuck. Both the scanner operator and the man with the gun should be punished, someone complacent enough to forget they have a loaded firearm with them should not be allowed to carry. Sorry.

Fixed that for you.
It's entirely possible that due to reasons unknown to us he's merely become complacent about keeping a firearm on hand and that would be why he forgot.

paladin

December 22nd, 2010, 08:07 PM

Ive gotten through security multiple times with 2 loaded guns

Kornman00

December 22nd, 2010, 09:26 PM

Your arms don't count :allears:

jcap

December 23rd, 2010, 12:57 AM

A man accidentally brought his loaded .40 caliber gun onto an airplane. He didn't know he had it. Neither did the TSA, who completely missed it during its scan and allowed that plane to fly. Apparently, this happens a lot. (http://gizmodo.com/5714865/the-tsa-let-a-loaded-gun-get-on-an-airplane?skyline=true&s=i)
Apparently, it does.

I don't know if you saw it, but Adam Savage (Mythbusters) accidentally brought two foot-long razor blades with him on the plane. TSA didn't notice.

Cortexian

December 25th, 2010, 10:46 AM

Fixed that for you.
It's entirely possible that due to reasons unknown to us he's merely become complacent about keeping a firearm on hand and that would be why he forgot.
No. One should never become "complacent" when firearms are concerned. Again, he's stupid and shouldn't be allowed to carry.

=sw=warlord

December 25th, 2010, 11:16 AM

No. One should never become "complacent" when firearms are concerned. Again, he's stupid and shouldn't be allowed to carry.
No one should ever become complacent with a vehicle, yet people do and they can do far more damage than a hand gun could.

Phopojijo

December 25th, 2010, 09:03 PM

No one should ever become complacent with a vehicle, yet people do and they can do far more damage than a hand gun could.Which is also wrong o.O

=sw=warlord

December 25th, 2010, 09:09 PM

Which is also wrong o.O

Never said it was right either, I only said it's a common occurrence no matter which dangerous object is in the subject.
As much as it bothers me that people like that exist, it doesn't surprise me which is why I pointed it out when people showed their surprise.

paladin

December 28th, 2010, 02:11 AM

I have a colt 1911 locked in my glove box. There are days Ive forgotten its in there.

n00b1n8R

December 28th, 2010, 02:37 AM

Never said it was right either, I only said it's a common occurrence no matter which dangerous object is in the subject.
As much as it bothers me that people like that exist, it doesn't surprise me which is why I pointed it out when people showed their surprise.
You're missing the point. People who drive irresponsibly loose the right to drive and that idiot should loose his right to carry arms.

=sw=warlord

December 28th, 2010, 02:03 PM

You're missing the point. People who drive irresponsibly loose the right to drive and that idiot should loose his right to carry arms.
No, you are missing mine.
I never contested that being irresponsible was a extremely stupid thing to do, you are the one trying to say I am.
What I am saying is no one should be surprised that complacence when it comes to being in possession of dangerous objects, no matter what object it may be.
It happens on a day to day basis, thing's are taken for granted and no one is none the wiser until something happens and all of the sudden everyone is playing the blame game in a knee-jerk reaction.

n00b1n8R

December 28th, 2010, 05:20 PM

No, you are missing mine.
I never contested that being irresponsible was a extremely stupid thing to do, you are the one trying to say I am.
What I am saying is no one should be surprised that complacence when it comes to being in possession of dangerous objects, no matter what object it may be.
It happens on a day to day basis, thing's are taken for granted and no one is none the wiser until something happens and all of the sudden everyone is playing the blame game in a knee-jerk reaction.
I see what you're saying but I think it's justified to say he should loose it. Just because something is common doesn't mean it's ok.

sleepy1212

December 29th, 2010, 09:02 AM

wait, why should this guy lose his carry/gun? What's inherently wrong with bringing a gun on a plane? exclude [TERRORISM!] and you got nothing.

thehoodedsmack

December 29th, 2010, 01:28 PM

wait, why should this guy lose his carry/gun? What's inherently wrong with bringing a gun on a plane? exclude [TERRORISM!] and you got nothing.

If it's unloaded, nothing.

But if you allow unloaded firearms onto a plane, you run the risk of someone accidentally or purposefully bringing a loaded gun onto a plane.

And then it's a matter of safety, ranging anywhere from an accidental firing to an emotionally unbalanced episode to a terrorist attack. It's just safer for everyone without guns on planes.

=sw=warlord

December 29th, 2010, 02:10 PM

If it's unloaded, nothing.

But if you allow unloaded firearms onto a plane, you run the risk of someone accidentally or purposefully bringing a loaded gun onto a plane.

And then it's a matter of safety, ranging anywhere from an accidental firing to an emotionally unbalanced episode to a terrorist attack. It's just safer for everyone without guns on planes.

And this is different when not on a plane...how?
I do love how people will fight kick and scream for their "right" to bare arms in public but as soon as public transport becomes involved the entire argument is tipped on is head.

thehoodedsmack

December 29th, 2010, 02:18 PM

I didn't say it was different when not on a plane.

=sw=warlord

December 29th, 2010, 02:26 PM

I didn't say it was different when not on a plane.
No you didn't.
But if the entire basis of argument for banning firearms from a plane was what you described then you would think they would be banned in their entirety not just on public transport.

EX12693

December 30th, 2010, 06:39 AM

=sw=warlord

December 30th, 2010, 07:18 AM

If you allowed guns on planes, any would-be terrorists would get shot, and taking a method of defense away from law-abiding citizens does not protect them...

If you ban guns, all the bad guys will still have guns. This woulnt apply if we strip-searched everyone, and their luggage.. but with the TSA's current failure rate, it still applies.

Let's put it this way.
People in high security prisons who are searched on a day to day basis still manage to find a means to produce a weapon of some kind, how exactly doe's anyone think that doing the same in a airport will make it any safer?
The TSA are more than happy to prove it wont change things just make it harder for the rest of the population.

Cortexian

December 30th, 2010, 08:59 PM

Note, the following was made possible due to personal connections. I know many people that work for Air Canada, the Calgary International Airport Authority, and the Calgary Police. Mostly through Cadets and Pipe and Drum band related activities... Anyhow...

I called some of the friends I know that are in the local PD assigned to the airport, they're going to try and arrange something so a few friends and I can "test" security one day really really early in the morning when it's not busy. The idea is for us to try and get things past security here and help the Police and security improve their dangerous object identification methods. We'll be hiding things on our person as well as in our carry-on.

Now, the security personnel are separate from the actual Police while the Police have more jurisdiction than the security officers. The security officers will be told that there will be a few people testing security that day. They won't be given any descriptions of us but they will be told a "codeword" so that if they catch us with said dangerous objects we can let them know easily. The Police will also be watching and ready to step in if the security officers get a little to frisky, heh. This is being integrated into an upcoming security measure check or something, I don't know the exact specifics but the people attempting to carry these potentially dangerous objects through security such as myself are being brought in by the Police. This is so the security people don't know faces necessarily, and won't be able to pick out the real passengers from us "testers". We'll have real boarding passes for fake flight numbers so everything will look legitimate to anyone looking at our papers from security, so unless someone from security has a photographic memory and reads all the flight numbers every day for their shift that shouldn't be a problem. We'll all be going to the same "fake flight gate" after security to meet a Police officer and let them know what we were able to get through. We will be provided with a bunch of things like rubber training guns, rubber training knives (to simulate ceramic knives), etc...

Posting this here because I was given permission to poll any place I liked for ideas on how to smuggle things past security... Now, I'm not going to be sticking anything into any of my body cavities so don't even bother suggesting it. We're looking for things like how to cleverly hide a ceramic blade of decent length on ones person without it being visible. So anyone have any ideas how I'd be able to get a gun through a carry-on bag x-ray scanner or whatever they use now? Lining the bag/briefcase in lead wouldn't matter as they search any bag that they can't see into. Disguising the gun in another object might be the best bet.

Cagerrin

December 30th, 2010, 09:04 PM

pretty sure this is a horribly detectable idea, but cut the sole of a shoe off, glue it back into place around the blade

also hair-slides

would you be able to take a portable hard drive in a carry-on? gut it, put a pistol in, hook a high-capacity usb stick or two up inside, weight it with something round to simulate platters.

Dwood

December 31st, 2010, 12:57 PM

I don't have many ideas, as you will probably think of my other ones, but if your security has the "no liquids" dealio try taking a water bladder, cutting the tubing off, then placing it in a bag.

Also, you shouldn't be testing it during non-busy hours of the day. You should be going through security during the holiday rushes, as that's when any potential terrorists will (imo) be trying to get on with weapons. Given they choose to get in through the country via Airplane.

Cortexian

December 31st, 2010, 07:50 PM

I'm going to try and get a small water bladder through in my carry on roller-suitcase, and another small zip-lock style bag taped to the small of my back. Low enough not to protrude but high enough so it's not visible when I lift my arms to get wanded.

From what I've been told they want to test it in the early non-busy hours because security is at its highest then since there's no pressure on the security staff to get lolhueg lines through. They do other random tests when it's bust but not on as big a scale (there's going to be 20 of us or so).

@Cagerrin: Shoe sole idea won't work, they make you remove your shoes and put them through the X-Ray here before you go through the metal detectors. They also made us do that in the US when we went down last year and the year before.

You'd need a really small gun to fit in a portable HDD enclosure, we'll be given Glock 17 training mockups that have the mag welded in and the slide welded so it's immovable. Even with a dual HDD portable enclosure it would be pretty hard to get a gun in.