Those of you who don't mind nude scans -- where DO you draw the line?
Jan 2, 2010, 6:51 pm
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Jan 2, 2010, 7:25 pm
#77
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I honestly didn't think you were. I was more opining than anything else.
To me, I just see a flying public (not you or many on FT) who wet their panties every time someone says "boo!" Yet, they get in their cars everyday and drive while talking on the cell phone and never give a single thought to the fact that the chance of them dying in a car crash are exponentially more possible than dying in a plane being blown up or taken over by a terrorist.
It boggles the mind.
To me, I just see a flying public (not you or many on FT) who wet their panties every time someone says "boo!" Yet, they get in their cars everyday and drive while talking on the cell phone and never give a single thought to the fact that the chance of them dying in a car crash are exponentially more possible than dying in a plane being blown up or taken over by a terrorist.
It boggles the mind.
(1) there's no great concentrated material benefit to be had from playing up car- and road-accident-related hysteria like there is in playing up terrorism-related hysteria; and
(2) the daily but dangerous is less interesting and.or worrisome to most people than the extraordinary and extraordinarily rare.
About (1), consider the matrix of concentrated costs, concentrated benefits, dilute benefits and dilute costs and think about how that affects outcomes.
About (2), just see the media hysteria when a person is murdered by a stranger -- especially that of another ethnicity -- and compare it to the concern when people are being murdered by acquaintances (of the majority background) or dying in road accidents. More often than not it's the less common occurrence that grabs the spotlight.
Jan 2, 2010, 7:58 pm
#78
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,090
I honestly didn't think you were. I was more opining than anything else.
To me, I just see a flying public (not you or many on FT) who wet their panties every time someone says "boo!" Yet, they get in their cars everyday and drive while talking on the cell phone and never give a single thought to the fact that the chance of them dying in a car crash are exponentially more possible than dying in a plane being blown up or taken over by a terrorist.
It boggles the mind.
To me, I just see a flying public (not you or many on FT) who wet their panties every time someone says "boo!" Yet, they get in their cars everyday and drive while talking on the cell phone and never give a single thought to the fact that the chance of them dying in a car crash are exponentially more possible than dying in a plane being blown up or taken over by a terrorist.
It boggles the mind.
I understand your point though. I ride a motorcycle and see almost daily people who are distracted with cell phones or such while driving several thousand pounds of iron. Many times I think they are trying to kill me. So far I've been able to dodge them.
Jan 2, 2010, 8:25 pm
#79
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Gold
Posts: 398
No matter how you ask it, and no matter how I say it, you guys are concerned that someone sees your genitials, and I don't give a rat's behind.
Jan 2, 2010, 8:30 pm
#80
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Gold
Posts: 398
Not if TSA personnel operate the machines using the same rules and procedures they do at airports.
Jan 2, 2010, 9:07 pm
#81
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
I don't care if someone sees my genitals IF I consent to it with full knowledge of what I am am consenting to.
The TSA has in effect lied by hiding the facts of the Nude-O-Scope. They pretend the device is in the same vein as a WTMD. The majority of people consenting don't have full knowledge of what they are consenting to.
The TSA is playing dirty pool with this one and that is what has me so upset. Well that and it is too intrusive for the benefit it provides.
Jan 2, 2010, 9:11 pm
#82
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Jan 2, 2010, 9:17 pm
#83
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BLI or CLT
Programs: The usual suspects
Posts: 1,900
Many of us are not concerned with exposure of the genitals, but rather (or in addition) with the unknown risk of long-term, repeated exposure to radiation, known to be carcinogenic, or radio waves, of uncertain health risk. This is particularly of concern regarding children, pregnant women, and those who have undergone cancer therapy, as they may be more susceptible.
And we are asked to undergo this increased risk for a procedure which does not detect explosives, which is, after all, the main concern. If there is an alarm, it will still need to be resolved by other means, as WBI is not the definitive answer, despite what TSA and other "authorities" say.
And we are asked to undergo this increased risk for a procedure which does not detect explosives, which is, after all, the main concern. If there is an alarm, it will still need to be resolved by other means, as WBI is not the definitive answer, despite what TSA and other "authorities" say.
Jan 2, 2010, 9:41 pm
#84
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY USA
Programs: NW Plat
Posts: 55
What's it worth, anyway?
People who want to fly on airplanes should be required to show that they do not carry dangerous items on their persons. It is as simple as that. The only thing that is distracts us from this simple truth are prudish social scruples that arose in times long past. Until we are willing to take a 21st century approach to 21st century problems, we and our freedom will be at the mercy of those willing to take advantage of our self-imposed limitations.
Almost all of the expense and intrusiveness of profiling, no-fly lists and all the other burdensome and ineffective security paraphernalia could be avoided by simply making sure that nobody gets on a plane with the means of doing harm.
Let’s try to keep this in focus: We’re talking about the possibility of people dying because of a delirious fixation that some folks have about genitals, a standard feature of every human body.
We've either got to get over it or else decide that "modesty" is a cause worth dying for.
Almost all of the expense and intrusiveness of profiling, no-fly lists and all the other burdensome and ineffective security paraphernalia could be avoided by simply making sure that nobody gets on a plane with the means of doing harm.
Let’s try to keep this in focus: We’re talking about the possibility of people dying because of a delirious fixation that some folks have about genitals, a standard feature of every human body.
We've either got to get over it or else decide that "modesty" is a cause worth dying for.
Jan 2, 2010, 9:59 pm
#85
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 464
To me, that is unacceptable. Other people may have no problem with it but I feel it strips some of my dignity away. I would actually prefer a search by a person who I can eyeball, it has more dignity.
Jan 2, 2010, 10:27 pm
#86
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
People who want to fly on airplanes should be required to show that they do not carry dangerous items on their persons. It is as simple as that. The only thing that is distracts us from this simple truth are prudish social scruples that arose in times long past. Until we are willing to take a 21st century approach to 21st century problems, we and our freedom will be at the mercy of those willing to take advantage of our self-imposed limitations.
Almost all of the expense and intrusiveness of profiling, no-fly lists and all the other burdensome and ineffective security paraphernalia could be avoided by simply making sure that nobody gets on a plane with the means of doing harm.
Let’s try to keep this in focus: We’re talking about the possibility of people dying because of a delirious fixation that some folks have about genitals, a standard feature of every human body.
We've either got to get over it or else decide that "modesty" is a cause worth dying for.
Almost all of the expense and intrusiveness of profiling, no-fly lists and all the other burdensome and ineffective security paraphernalia could be avoided by simply making sure that nobody gets on a plane with the means of doing harm.
Let’s try to keep this in focus: We’re talking about the possibility of people dying because of a delirious fixation that some folks have about genitals, a standard feature of every human body.
We've either got to get over it or else decide that "modesty" is a cause worth dying for.
Jan 2, 2010, 10:57 pm
#87
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 34
I agreed to the impossible procedure because I still wanted to make the point that the "idea" of a colonoscopy doesn't bother me. In the real world at our current medical state of affairs, it would take too long, be too messy, not be anonymous, etc. so it ain't about to happen as a mass tool. ... No matter how you ask it, and no matter how I say it, you guys are concerned that someone sees your genitials, and I don't give a rat's behind.
Jan 2, 2010, 11:00 pm
#88
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 34
Technology exists to scan a person and indicate on a representative image where any anomalous readings are found. The SPO-7 uses such technology. It would be a simple task to modify the SPO-7 to take it from a passive system to an active system. Or you can use the same type of program to modify the Nude-O-Scope to the same end.
Jan 2, 2010, 11:02 pm
#89
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 108
People who want to fly on airplanes should be required to show that they do not carry dangerous items on their persons. It is as simple as that. The only thing that is distracts us from this simple truth are prudish social scruples that arose in times long past. Until we are willing to take a 21st century approach to 21st century problems, we and our freedom will be at the mercy of those willing to take advantage of our self-imposed limitations.
Almost all of the expense and intrusiveness of profiling, no-fly lists and all the other burdensome and ineffective security paraphernalia could be avoided by simply making sure that nobody gets on a plane with the means of doing harm.
Let’s try to keep this in focus: We’re talking about the possibility of people dying because of a delirious fixation that some folks have about genitals, a standard feature of every human body.
We've either got to get over it or else decide that "modesty" is a cause worth dying for.
Almost all of the expense and intrusiveness of profiling, no-fly lists and all the other burdensome and ineffective security paraphernalia could be avoided by simply making sure that nobody gets on a plane with the means of doing harm.
Let’s try to keep this in focus: We’re talking about the possibility of people dying because of a delirious fixation that some folks have about genitals, a standard feature of every human body.
We've either got to get over it or else decide that "modesty" is a cause worth dying for.
2. The only way to be sure no one is carrying a weapon is to do a real strip search. And when a bomber is caught hiding explosives up his arse, they'll start doing cavity searches as well. Are you OK with that?
Since 9/11, there have been 2 attempts to blow up a passenger plane. Neither of them were successful. And there have been tens of millions of commercial flights since then; given those odds, I'll take my chances.
Besides, you'll find that a majority of plane crashes are caused by pilot error, mechanical failure, or some other non-terrorist related cause. If we're going to go into full-paranoia mode in the name of airplane safety, we should be looking at pilot training and maintenance, not the passengers. And while we're at it, we can shoot all of the geese out of the sky, since we now know they can take down an Airbus.
Jan 2, 2010, 11:06 pm
#90
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Under an ORD approach path
Programs: DL PM, MM. Coffee isn't a drug, it's a vitamin.
Posts: 12,935
As to the nude-o-scope, purely in the eyes of the law, what is the difference between a child pornographer viewing images on their home computer and a TSO looking at 12 year old girls being scanned by that machine? (I'm not talking about how much they enjoy what they're doing; only about the dispassionate view under the laws of our nation of what they are actually doing).