Those of you who don't mind nude scans -- where DO you draw the line?
Jan 3, 2010, 8:58 am
#106
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
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.
Stick to subjects you know something about. Clearly you are out of your depth here - even the most minute amount of research will tell you that there is a massive variance in what people are willing to actually do, even among those who are "wanting to" or "willing to" die for their cause.
Taboo sells, if it didn't dirty book stores would be closed. The Nude-O-Scope manufactures are using the taboo factor to sell their device.
For clarification, I don't think the guys at HQ are getting turned on by the pictures but they are getting turned on by the fact they have the ability to peer under clothes.
For clarification, I don't think the guys at HQ are getting turned on by the pictures but they are getting turned on by the fact they have the ability to peer under clothes.
Jan 3, 2010, 9:01 am
#107
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
I am still waiting to see you attempt a substantive rebuttal to Trollkiller's post. I don't see it in your above post.You don't think some people get turned on by doing something generally considered taboo? Then try to explain the still-existing "peeping Tom" phenomenon in an age where pornographic images are so readily available to such persons and they can see more and more easily without engaging in "peeping Tom" behavior.
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who get turned on by touching people. WAIT! PAT DOWNS! They've been getting their way with us all these years!
What a load of absolute rubbish
Jan 3, 2010, 9:27 am
#108
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Jan 3, 2010, 9:45 am
#109
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
Originally Posted by williamsg4713
But would it be necessary to expel the explosive to make it work? Could a suicide bomber literally be a walking (or seated) bomb?
A "walking" bomb would be possible even with the strip search machines. Depending upon the distribution of the explosives and the attire and body make-up of the person, it would be possible.
Originally Posted by williamsg4713
Yes, but while those would not show up on a WBI scan they could, in principle, anyway, be discovered by a physical examination of the anus, and of the vaginas of those who have them. But you couldn't discover stomach
content this way. Therefore, if in principle a person can turn himself into a bomb by swallowing explosive, would it, again in principle, require a higher-powered xray of the stomach and digestive tract to find this out?
content this way. Therefore, if in principle a person can turn himself into a bomb by swallowing explosive, would it, again in principle, require a higher-powered xray of the stomach and digestive tract to find this out?
X-rays as used by radiologists on medical patients will cause tissue and/or genetic damage, and the more it's used the greater the likelihood of health issues.
I recall this article coming to mind after 9/11. What you can do is make the crime more difficult for the suicidal assassin, but while you can improve the odds
you can't absolutely prevent it, at least without making it impossible for a President to do his job. The question, then, for the Secret Service as well as for airline security becomes, as you point out, a trade-off.
you can't absolutely prevent it, at least without making it impossible for a President to do his job. The question, then, for the Secret Service as well as for airline security becomes, as you point out, a trade-off.
Jan 3, 2010, 9:51 am
#110
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
...and the typical, myopic response from the usual suspect. What the hell does that have to do with the topic on hand? This topic is about the use of 21st century techniques to replace medieval groping of every passenger. If you have slipped a blade or other weapon into your wallet then guess what - they are probably going to want to check. Otherwise, guess what - they don't care.
There are too many stories on FT of TSOs READING the private contents of a wallet. Are you calling all those people liars? Note: I did not say searching for WEI, so you are waging a false argument.
Stick to subjects you know something about. Clearly you are out of your depth here - even the most minute amount of research will tell you that there is a massive variance in what people are willing to actually do, even among those who are "wanting to" or "willing to" die for their cause.
My answer of "All that are wanting to die for their cause." is a true statement. Those that are willing to die for their cause but not wanting to die for their cause will not willingly kill themselves. (Exceptions made for bravery in the heat of battle.)
Try reading a book, the hardest enemy to defeat is one wanting to die for their cause.
What utter cr*p. Seriously - you expected to be considered some sort of credible voice on this subject with this? Show us one scrap of anything that even indicates that this is true. Unbelievable. So much for a well-informed debate on the subject
If the ability to see under clothing is not driven by the taboo then explain why the TSA has not employed MMW devices that highlight alarms on a generic "stick" figure. The technology is available and in use screening people in Iraq. Or better yet explain why the TSA would throw in on equipment that can easily be beaten instead of using K-9s.
Instead of attempting to attack me, try attacking the argument.
Jan 3, 2010, 9:59 am
#111
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BLI or CLT
Programs: The usual suspects
Posts: 1,904
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.
The determined terrorist can instead, conceal the item in the rectum or vagina, or swallow it. Digital rectal exam? The colon is 6 feet long, the finger a few inches; the item can be concealed out of reach of the examining finger. Devices or substances can also be surgically implanted beneath the skin. Will every passenger wearing an artificial joint, a pacemaker, an insulin pump, or implanted defibrillator be forced to prove it is not an explosive? How? More "Nipplegates"?
In addition, barfield2, you refuse to address the safety issue, namely the exposure of billions of passengers to carcinogenic radiation (or radio waves of uncertain safety, but the subject of ongoing research) that does not detect explosives. Since adverse effects are typically long-term (latency of 20 years or more in the case of radiation), it will be years before the safety of this methodology can be "proven."
To Ruthalaska, I am a family doctor who has been reviewing my routine literature on the subject (journals I subscribe to, listservs, favorite health professional websites, etc) and have not seen data proving that either radio wave or low dose radiation is safe. Definitive proof - of damage or safety - is often years in the making.
So let's try to keep this in focus: the best way to prevent such terrorist attacks is to use intelligence and reasonable security screening (not gratuitous harassment of all passengers, not destruction of commercial aviation) to keep terrorists off airplanes. The best way to prevent unnecessary American deaths is probably safer driving and vehicles, and less junk food.
Jan 3, 2010, 10:17 am
#113
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Is this you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKKUTW65PK4
Jan 3, 2010, 10:22 am
#114
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: BLI or CLT
Programs: The usual suspects
Posts: 1,904
Nah, that was for the benefit of those who live in whichever nanny state has just recently banned all transfats in cooking!
Besides, as long as we are getting into magical thinking - like the belief that WBI will keep us all 100% safe - why not mention other preposterous ideas? Like life without McDonald's french fries.
Besides, as long as we are getting into magical thinking - like the belief that WBI will keep us all 100% safe - why not mention other preposterous ideas? Like life without McDonald's french fries.
Jan 3, 2010, 10:29 am
#115
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Is this you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKKUTW65PK4
Jan 3, 2010, 10:30 am
#116
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Jan 3, 2010, 10:30 am
#117
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
...and the typical, myopic response from the usual suspect. What the hell does that have to do with the topic on hand? This topic is about the use of 21st century techniques to replace medieval groping of every passenger. If you have slipped a blade or other weapon into your wallet then guess what - they are probably going to want to check. Otherwise, guess what - they don't care.
No razor blades, weapons or even an alarm.
Jan 3, 2010, 11:09 am
#118
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY USA
Programs: NW Plat
Posts: 55
Keeping things in focus, radiation risk, etc.
Just to be clear. I agree with onlyairfare that there’s no way to conclusively prove an individual is not carrying dangerous items. But I’d settle for “vastly reduce the risk.”
In that regard, focusing on what each passenger actually carries would surely work better than cumbersome no-fly lists, background screening and general intelligence surveillance.
As for swallowed explosives, they could eventually become a real problem. But we’ve all heard stories of soldiers saving their buddies by jumping on live grenades. I expect that the body’s dampening effect on swallowed explosives would be similar. And, has been mentioned, the Saudi incident provides recent evidence that it is.
To deal with the case of “expelled” explosives, I’d suggest deploying something like the trace-detection (“puffer”) technology in the lavatories.
Speaking of risk, onlyairfare also raises the problem of radiation exposure. This is a concern. However, to put it in perspective: “The exposure passengers get from flying cross-continental or transoceanic from cosmic radiation is far higher.” Check it out here: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenu...yScanners.aspx.
In any case, unlike high-altitude cosmic rays, the millimeter technology favored by TSA has no known biological effects.
My point is not, however, to endorse any particular technology. My point is merely that the right to life trumps the right to modesty, “privacy” or whatever you want to call it.
As the very least, no one has the right to ask that other people risk their lives for the sake of his own modesty.
In that regard, focusing on what each passenger actually carries would surely work better than cumbersome no-fly lists, background screening and general intelligence surveillance.
As for swallowed explosives, they could eventually become a real problem. But we’ve all heard stories of soldiers saving their buddies by jumping on live grenades. I expect that the body’s dampening effect on swallowed explosives would be similar. And, has been mentioned, the Saudi incident provides recent evidence that it is.
To deal with the case of “expelled” explosives, I’d suggest deploying something like the trace-detection (“puffer”) technology in the lavatories.
Speaking of risk, onlyairfare also raises the problem of radiation exposure. This is a concern. However, to put it in perspective: “The exposure passengers get from flying cross-continental or transoceanic from cosmic radiation is far higher.” Check it out here: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenu...yScanners.aspx.
In any case, unlike high-altitude cosmic rays, the millimeter technology favored by TSA has no known biological effects.
My point is not, however, to endorse any particular technology. My point is merely that the right to life trumps the right to modesty, “privacy” or whatever you want to call it.
As the very least, no one has the right to ask that other people risk their lives for the sake of his own modesty.
Jan 3, 2010, 11:23 am
#119
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
Sacrifice "your right to modesty, 'privacy' or whatever you want to call it" and we'll provide the ultimate in safety from ____.
Jan 3, 2010, 11:41 am
#120
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
My point is not, however, to endorse any particular technology. My point is merely that the right to life trumps the right to modesty, “privacy” or whatever you want to call it.
As the very least, no one has the right to ask that other people risk their lives for the sake of his own modesty.
As the very least, no one has the right to ask that other people risk their lives for the sake of his own modesty.