Eppley Airport Scanners

[S33]

I don't think it's a big deal. If some 9 dollar an hour dude wants to get his jollies off be starring at my package, so be it.

I do know that the machines were originally built to project an almost perfect depiction (in color) of what a person looks like naked. Because that was too invasive, they took the negatives of those images and it's what you see now.

Admin, can I post a partially nude photo for an example and scientific reasons? =)

Here's a link to the picture.

http://www.worldculturepictorial.com/im ... -image.jpg

[OmahaBen]

I still say 90% of the public would be willing to take the risk of something happening with lower security if it meant not being treated like a criminal every time you wanted to fly somewhere.

The risk of an incident on any given airplane is minuscule. I'll take the extra .0002% chance of something happening if it means I can leave my shoes and belt on and not have to show up 3 bijillion hours ahead of time at some airports.

[MTO]

And that's why I hated my law classes. It always turns into a never ending idealogical debate. There will never be a clear and concise translation to the Fourth Amendment.

[S33]

The risk of an incident on any given airplane is minuscule. .

Yes, because of the security practices they have put in place. Do away with the security the way we know it, then it's just another easy target for any pis*ed off middle eastern man on a mission.

I'd lift my sack and bend over & cough any day before I die at the hands of those pieces of shyt.

[DTO Luv]

"Terrorism" from foreigners has only killed between 3,000-4,000 people in our whole history as a country but how much money have we spent deluding ourselves that we can ever really stop anything? No matter what security measures are put in place there is always going to be a way around them. These body scanners offer little in the way of actually preventing someone from smuggling a weapon onto a plane. Also I highly doubt that planes would be the next M.O. for someone trying to commit an act of terrorism. I would like to think that if there were 8 hijackers on a plane that the rest of the 100+ passengers would do something to prevent their plan from going through. Yeah you may get sliced by a box cutter but do you really want to die in a plane crash?

If some "pi$$ed off middle eastern person" really wanted to disrupt things in this country then they would attack things like power plants or set of a biological weapon in a crowded area. Meanwhile we're wasting time and money and infringing on people's privacy on a terrorists plan that is so 2001.

[S33]

"Terrorism" from foreigners has only killed between 3,000-4,000 people in our whole history as a country

Yeah, the measly 3-4 thousand people who were sacrificed in the name of Islam could have been avoided with better background checks, pilot cabin doors, and these new scanners to identify their box knives.

but how much money have we spent deluding ourselves that we can ever really stop anything? No matter what security measures are put in place there is always going to be a way around them.

Yeah, there is always a way to kill people. That is why counter terrorism is so difficult and often called "an endless battle." That sure as shyt doesn't mean we just sit back and relax and make it easy for them.

" These body scanners offer little in the way of actually preventing someone from smuggling a weapon onto a plane.

No, these scanners could have identified that idiot's bomb in his huggies, the 9/11 box cutters, and any other suspicious item someone hides on their person.

"Also I highly doubt that planes would be the next M.O. for someone trying to commit an act of terrorism. I would like to think that if there were 8 hijackers on a plane that the rest of the 100+ passengers would do something to prevent their plan from going through. Yeah you may get sliced by a box cutter but do you really want to die in a plane crash?

Very true, and the airline that crashed in rural Pennsylvania was a prime example as they passengers knew via phone about the other attacks. Once again, recent history has shown they are obviously still heck bent on carrying out an attack with an airliner, because it's a guaranteed 100+ passenger kill, collateral casualties, and a plane full of jet fuel.

"If some "pi$$ed off middle eastern person" really wanted to disrupt things in this country then they would attack things like power plants or set of a biological weapon in a crowded area. Meanwhile we're wasting time and money and infringing on people's privacy on a terrorists plan that is so 2001.

They are plotting attacks on our power grid, water supplies, food supplies, and etc. However, that "useless excuse for a war" and the endless drone attacks disrupting these terrorist networks worldwide, have them a bit more pre-occupied right now.

They tell you about once a month about their intention on killing you, maybe this money isn't completely wasted.

[MTO]

Oh boy here we go. It would be much more interesting if you guys did some research before going at it. Otherwise we already heard it.
better start somewhere http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/co ... vacy.shtml

[S33]

Oh boy here we go. It would be much more interesting if you guys did some research before going at it. Otherwise we already heard it.
better start somewhere http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/co ... vacy.shtml

I made some very simple rebuttals to DTO's opinions. I don't think we need an official gentleman's meeting to compare who has the largest dick to have this discussion.

I also do not see how the 4th amendment nor any supreme court decisions has any bearing on our opinions on the subject. Maybe DTO doesn't want his tax dollars funding these security procedures nor have his naked |expletive| visible to the underemployed. Myself, I could give a |expletive| less.

[DTO Luv]

"Terrorism" from foreigners has only killed between 3,000-4,000 people in our whole history as a country

Yeah, the measly 3-4 thousand people who were sacrificed in the name of Islam could have been avoided with better background checks, pilot cabin doors, and these new scanners to identify their box knives.

Or the ones who were killed by orders from Emperor Hirohito. Sept. 11th was a very isolated incident for the U.S. and I would put money on it that we won't see well organized Islamic extremists try anything with planes again. People are watching too closely even without the needless hassles and expenditures on "security" at the airport. People seem to gloss over the fact that the last few people who have tried things on planes have been lone wolfs with anti-US ideaologies who were caught. I would also like to point out how few of them were of Arabic ethnicity so even if these people were to have been racially profiled they wouldn't have been caught because people are too busy looking for people with turbans.

but how much money have we spent deluding ourselves that we can ever really stop anything? No matter what security measures are put in place there is always going to be a way around them.

Yeah, there is always a way to kill people. That is why counter terrorism is so difficult and often called "an endless battle." That sure as shyt doesn't mean we just sit back and relax and make it easy for them.

Who said we're making it easy for them? All of the plots by people that would have used planes to attack the US or try to blow them up have been stopped and body scanners had nothing to do with it. It was more a success of our intelligence agencies doing their jobs. Even if they were close calls they were still stopped with the right tools of law enforcement not privacy invasion of non-suspicious citizens.

" These body scanners offer little in the way of actually preventing someone from smuggling a weapon onto a plane.

No, these scanners could have identified that idiot's bomb in his huggies, the 9/11 box cutters, and any other suspicious item someone hides on their person.

True they could have but who's to say that they would have been picked for screening? Also if they did have explosives and they knew they would get caught going through a body scanner then just detonate it right there in the terminal. The body scanner just moved the attack from the plane where only a plane and those on it would be affected and not a busy indoor airline terminal. You have to live with some sort of risk and try to minimize the real dangers. Can you honestly say you would prefer a suicide bomber in a plane 35,000ft in the air or in a congested terminal at a major airport?

"Also I highly doubt that planes would be the next M.O. for someone trying to commit an act of terrorism. I would like to think that if there were 8 hijackers on a plane that the rest of the 100+ passengers would do something to prevent their plan from going through. Yeah you may get sliced by a box cutter but do you really want to die in a plane crash?

Very true, and the airline that crashed in rural Pennsylvania was a prime example as they passengers knew via phone about the other attacks. Once again, recent history has shown they are obviously still heck bent on carrying out an attack with an airliner, because it's a guaranteed 100+ passenger kill, collateral casualties, and a plane full of jet fuel.

Go over your history again. The 9/11 hijackers were very well organized and funded compared to the less savvy loner copycats who have tried to hijack or bomb planes since 9/11. If the intelligence agencies are doing well at capturing these lone rouges then I bet a snowballs chance in heck that a well funded group of 20+ would be terrorists would be able to even leave their house the morning they would plan an attack. Over the last decade the US has been more successful with stopping the most difficult to predict attacks and so far we're safe and this was long before body scanners were even discussed. We know what to expect and watch for and it's working. If the single crazies out there don't aren't able to pull off their attacks then I think that would discourage them from trying planes. I really think we should look for people going after things that would actually harm us like cyber attacks, biological weapons, or suicide bombers in crowded public places. Too many people are watching the planes and I think it could be done at the expense of missing another attack elsewhere.  

"If some "pi$$ed off middle eastern person" really wanted to disrupt things in this country then they would attack things like power plants or set of a biological weapon in a crowded area. Meanwhile we're wasting time and money and infringing on people's privacy on a terrorists plan that is so 2001.

They are plotting attacks on our power grid, water supplies, food supplies, and etc. However, that "useless excuse for a war" and the endless drone attacks disrupting these terrorist networks worldwide, have them a bit more pre-occupied right now.

They tell you about once a month about their intention on killing you, maybe this money isn't completely wasted.

I think we made our own problems worse by starting those wars in the first place. Before we would have just been fighting pure extremists, but now after invading and occupying and killing civilians abroad all we have done is make the problem worse for ourselves. Not everyone in arab countries hates us for our supposed religion or involvement in other parts of the world and would have been content never crossing paths with those that would plot against the US. But now we've given people in those countries very legitimate reasons to hate us and hate us enough to want to try to strike at us alone or in a group plot. Even with these monthly promises to kill us have any of them come a step closer? No. Will one of them pull it off someday? Yes, but it doubt we'll see a repeat attack from a group organized and funded enough to pull something off on the level of 9/11 using the exact same methods.


I would not want tax dollars spent on invading the privacy of US citizens. If they really wanted to make me walk through a body scanner I would say fuk it and strip butt naked right there and spread 'em if they really wanted a close look. Might save a few bucks from having to turn the machine on.

[S33]

Well, we agree on almost nothing, yet again. Wish we had a TSA expert here to provide some incident numbers and so fourth in our airports. Minimally, I think the scanners could prevent your average crazy person from boarding a flight and being a danger to himself and others, regardless of that person's ethnicity or religion.

[OmahaBen]

I also do not see how the 4th amendment nor any supreme court decisions has any bearing on our opinions on the subject. Maybe DTO doesn't want his tax dollars funding these security procedures nor have his naked |expletive| visible to the underemployed. Myself, I could give a |expletive| less.

I'm not talking about whether they legally can or cannot do it (frankly, legally it's a no-brainer that they can).

I'm saying if you actually gave people a choice and allowed them to sign a waiver or something to go back to security levels we had circa 1990 (or even 1960), 90% of the population would be all for it.

[S33]

I also do not see how the 4th amendment nor any supreme court decisions has any bearing on our opinions on the subject. Maybe DTO doesn't want his tax dollars funding these security procedures nor have his naked |expletive| visible to the underemployed. Myself, I could give a |expletive| less.

I'm not talking about whether they legally can or cannot do it (frankly, legally it's a no-brainer that they can).

I'm saying if you actually gave people a choice and allowed them to sign a waiver or something to go back to security levels we had circa 1990 (or even 1960), 90% of the population would be all for it.

Perhaps, but that's not how security works.

As cliche' and lame as the phrase is, things have changed since 9/11 and our lax security measures and comforts while flying the friendly skies are gone. The second the ball is dropped, these airliners will become, yet again, 30-ton bombs.

[OmahaBen]

I also do not see how the 4th amendment nor any supreme court decisions has any bearing on our opinions on the subject. Maybe DTO doesn't want his tax dollars funding these security procedures nor have his naked |expletive| visible to the underemployed. Myself, I could give a |expletive| less.

I'm not talking about whether they legally can or cannot do it (frankly, legally it's a no-brainer that they can).

I'm saying if you actually gave people a choice and allowed them to sign a waiver or something to go back to security levels we had circa 1990 (or even 1960), 90% of the population would be all for it.

Perhaps, but that's not how security works.

As cliche' and lame as the phrase is, things have changed since 9/11 and our lax security measures and comforts while flying the friendly skies are gone. The second the ball is dropped, these airliners will become, yet again, 30-ton bombs.

I guess I don't see that things have changed since 9/11. Terrorism was always a possibility prior to that. 9/11 was just an instance where the terrorists beat the system. The changes made to the system since may have some impact on safety, but I personally think the inconveniences imposed by the new measures outweigh any such security benefits. At some point you have to be willing to say enough is enough and if |expletive| happens, well, it was your turn to go. But in the meantime, you can actually enjoy flying again without being presumed a criminal as soon as you get to the airport.

[S33]

Sorry, but I will never accept that "it's just my time to go" because some idiots are he-ll bent on killing in the name of the Koran.

We've literally got the dumbest, most naive population on the face of the Earth, but that's as far as I'm going to go with that.

[Omababe]

Sorry, but I will never accept that "it's just my time to go" because some idiots are he-ll bent on killing in the name of the Koran.

We've literally got the dumbest, most naive population on the face of the Earth, but that's as far as I'm going to go with that.

We also have some cretin politician saying that such things as rape and incest are "God's Will" or something.

[S33]

Never heard of that before. If they aren't corrupt, they're crazy.

[icejammer]

I also do not see how the 4th amendment nor any supreme court decisions has any bearing on our opinions on the subject. Maybe DTO doesn't want his tax dollars funding these security procedures nor have his naked |expletive| visible to the underemployed. Myself, I could give a |expletive| less.

I'm not talking about whether they legally can or cannot do it (frankly, legally it's a no-brainer that they can).

I'm saying if you actually gave people a choice and allowed them to sign a waiver or something to go back to security levels we had circa 1990 (or even 1960), 90% of the population would be all for it.

I highly doubt that, I don't know one person who would be for taking security back to those levels.  I'd say 90% of the population is willing to keep things as they are, or even increase security screenings.