Naked scans stored

[mildawg]

Your response is interesting to me since YOU are the one I believe is burying their head in the sand and letting someone take away the right of privacy of your own body away from you. Seriously, do you think there are not other ways to kill if they choose to do so? The terrorists are probably laughing their butts off at the measures that are being taken rather than simple profiling. There are choices available, including approved flyer lists- they probably just got a ton of donations from the company making the scanners so the try to make you believe this is the only answer.

Once again, don't fly. Unfortunately I live the threat every day and know that it is serious. And we're not talking about other ways to kill you -- we're talking about the current threat to aviation. Again, if you know a better way to stop people from smuggling explosive materials in non-metallic containers sewn into their clothing or strapped to their bodies, then please share. THAT is the current threat and it is a reality. More than likely the scans/pat downs will force the terrorists to change their methodology; if so, then they worked.

You seem to want to argue more than to discuss the need for the scanners or alternate pat downs. And "approved flyer lists" are not realistic and will never happen. Anyone calling for something like this is naive.

[mildawg]

please tell me that you don't believe people complaining that pictures of their bodies will be viewed and stored- or will be groped is the same thing as not being able to carry liquid or opening bags. There really is a difference!!!! They do not need the scanners!!!!!!!! You must have had some awsome kool-aid if you will swallow that and believe it is needed.

You're just trying to find something to argue about. I was talking about profiling, not equating the scans to having one's bags checked. I'm not quite sure what your point is, other than you believe your privacy is being violated. OK, that's your right; I haven't made an argument or case one way or another about that. What I have said is that I understand the need for the scanners and they are necessary because they are a deterrent. You say they are not because the terrorists could always find another way to kill us. Sure they could, but when the terrorists succeed in an attack against aviation, it causes security measures to be adjusted. This is one of those adjustments and it was made because of an attempted attack and based on A LOT of intelligence about future threats. In short, it was made to keep people safe.

You don't like it for privacy reasons. Fine. Write a letter to your congressman/woman. Arguing with me is not going to change it.

[JuBru]

Every exemption that y'all and others out in the US are trying to explain and get are the exact loopholes terrorist and such will use to get buy. Sleeper cells can go YEARS without doin anything, and all members would appear being normal citizens, until it's time. Government credentials, commercial pilots licenses, etc are all easily attainable.

[Abominable Gorilla]

Your response is interesting to me since YOU are the one I believe is burying their head in the sand and letting someone take away the right of privacy of your own body away from you. Seriously, do you think there are not other ways to kill if they choose to do so? The terrorists are probably laughing their butts off at the measures that are being taken rather than simple profiling.

In one sentence, you complain about privacy rights. Then, you suggest simple profiling. In the truest definition of profiling, I might agree. But I'll bet you mean profiling based on race, is that the case? If that's true, why are your rights more important than the rights of any other American?

Let's hope no naked scans of Janet make it out into the open... definitely Worst Thread Ever material.

I've often thought about messing with them in a very passive way, like writing something on my chest with the right kind of paint or something, just to be obnoxious.

[Guisslapp]

Personally, I am comfortable assuming the risk that someone will blow up a plane that I am on. We go to all sorts of crowded venues and assume the risk that we will be blown up there without having our privacy invaded. What is the difference with airplanes?

[mildawg]

Personally, I am comfortable assuming the risk that someone will blow up a plane that I am on. We go to all sorts of crowded venues and assume the risk that we will be blown up there without having our privacy invaded. What is the difference with airplanes?

That is true. As many aircraft that take off and land every day, your odds of being on one that is attacked is pretty small. However, to answer your question, the difference between being blown up at a mall or on an airplane is that airplanes are specifically being targeted. In fact, many countries have recently increased their security levels due to specific threats to aviation, with Germany raising its level today.

We shake our heads at work because the terrorists could pull off many attacks that would be just as devastating as taking an aircraft down. For example, a Mumbai-style attack in a DC metro station during rush hour would kill hundreds and essentially shut down the capital. That sort of attack has very few moving parts and would be virtually impossible to stop. But for some reason these whackos seem hell-bent on attacking commercial airliners. Richard Reid and his shoe bomb; now we have to remove our shoes at airports. Then the liquid explosives plot on US-bound Transatlantic flights; now we can't bring liquids on aircraft.

Unfortunately these are all inconvenient measures that we have to keep taking to prevent attacks. Personally, I think it stinks like most other people. I don't want to go through one of the scanners or be groped at the airport. I've seen the video of the little girl from Tennessee having a fit while the TSA screener does a pat-down; it is ridiculous and I would never want my children to go through that. I, too, wish we would profile in conjunction with these other security measures, but even that wouldn't necessarily help us. Because of the Internet, there are many US and European citizens of non-Arab origin who are becoming radicalized and seeking to conduct "jihad." Even though most of them will never advance past the aspirational stage, we cannot dismiss the threat completely. However, common sense should prevail.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

Personally, I am comfortable assuming the risk that someone will blow up a plane that I am on. We go to all sorts of crowded venues and assume the risk that we will be blown up there without having our privacy invaded. What is the difference with airplanes?

Not me. Take the means necessary to protect the public. I choose to go to the mall and may not choose to fly. It is a necessity sometimes. Scan my junk if you need to.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Word is the TSA is trying to unionize! We must stop their various power grabs before this happens. I say PROFILE first then full scan if needed.

[JuBru]

Simply put, higher casualty rate (usually).

[Soonerdawg]

You have to see these to believe them. Here are a couple of videos of abuses of the search procedures taped at airports:

Video 1 - Searching and old lady


Video 2 - Searching a young lady

[Cal&Ken]

Once again, don't fly. Unfortunately I live the threat every day and know that it is serious. And we're not talking about other ways to kill you -- we're talking about the current threat to aviation. Again, if you know a better way to stop people from smuggling explosive materials in non-metallic containers sewn into their clothing or strapped to their bodies, then please share. THAT is the current threat and it is a reality. More than likely the scans/pat downs will force the terrorists to change their methodology; if so, then they worked.

You seem to want to argue more than to discuss the need for the scanners or alternate pat downs. And "approved flyer lists" are not realistic and will never happen. Anyone calling for something like this is naive.

I am not trying to argue. I am just telling you are wrong, there is no need for them. Your opinion and the obama administration go hand in hand- that should say it all for you.

[mildawg]

I am not trying to argue. I am just telling you are wrong, there is no need for them. Your opinion and the obama administration go hand in hand- that should say it all for you.

And why am I wrong? Why aren't they necessary? Please enlighten me.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...v=TBL3ux1o0tM&

[RougeDawg]

Lick or cavity search?

The TSA has decided against implementing body cavity searches, choosing a less invasive measure for secondary screening. Beginning March 2011, airline passengers that are “pinged” when walking through scanning gates will have their necks licked by trained TSA staff. If TSA’s trained lickers detect an overabundance of “sweat, fear-based hormones or plastic explosives”, the passenger will be asked to either lean over and have additional lick-testing done or submit to a full body cavity search “out back”.

New Anti-Terror Measures
“We believe most passengers will prefer to be licked rather than probed, so the new screening criteria will ‘lead by the tongue’. But full body cavity probing could follow on behind,” says the TSA.

A new $900 million advertising campaign featuring Licky the Anti Terror Bee and Brett Favre will be launched at halftime in Super Bowl XLV. The TSA acknowledges that the new “lick first, probe second” safety campaign was driven both by customer preference and economics. “In focus groups, many flyers were against being spread-eagled and having a stranger probe one or more of their body cavities. And from an employment relations point of view, TSA staff want a lot more than $9 an hour to do body cavity searches on suspected al Qaeda terrorists, or even big people like Kirstie Alley and the late Orson Welles. Our staff much prefer to lick them,” the spokesman said.

Despite TSA assurances that neck-licking and body cavity searches will be accepted by most domestic and international passengers, travel agents are worried that the new regimes could negatively impact American tourism. “Other than the French, who have no problem with licking or cavity searches, either done by TSA staff or beagles, not every culture is so open. If travelers wanted to be licked or probed, they’d have gone to Paris or Amsterdam“, not America.”

http://hogsatemysister.com

[Soonerdawg]

Woman Suing Federal Government After TSA Screeners Exposed Her Breasts to Entire Airport (And Asked for Video)