Lets tallk.....BODY SCANNERS

Okay so let me get this straight....

A search warrant is okay because we have some evidence that a person is doing something wrong.

Going back to airport security....

We know that the traditional system where you walk through the metal detector, the xray scans your bags, etc, doesn't work 100% of the time. We also know that terrorists are coming up with new ways to sneak by that system.

Isn't that good enough evidence that we need a new system?

You also have to remember, it is not like the person that sees your x-ray image knows your name, where you live, or any other personal details about you.

Let me also ask you this: what is so wrong about someone seeing an x-ray of your genitals without being able to identify you while gaining valuable security information, that you rather use the old system? Is it embarrassing? Do you just think it is wrong?

All I know at the end of the day is, I got scanned by an x-ray at the airport and I still have my personal privacy. Oh, and the plane landed safely.

 

No system is 100%. You're explicitly arguing for more and more intrusion to ensure 100% safety. R. You're also conflating what someone else might do, as evidence of what another might do. Then, you the use that specious argument for increasing surveillance. Where does that stop?

 

My argument isn't that we need more. My argument is that someone seeing an xray scan of my body without having anyway to uniquely identify me (I.e. they don't know my name) is not intrusive. (In other words, I don't care if someone sees me naked. At the end of the day, I still have all my rights.)

 

I don't know what Bill O has to say. But I like the Fox rage.

The term liberalism has nothing to do with the people who call themselves Liberals here in the US. I prefer to call them socialists.

Not exactly, but being Republican doesn't make you Conservative. We call them RINO's. In some areas they may have Conservative values, but not wholly. I view Conservatism in America, to be similar to libertarianism. As I view being Conservative here, to be about conserving and restoring our founding principles in which liberty was highly valued.

Bigger Government, class warfare, and theft are always harmful.

I don't have any remorse about taking out a murderous dictator, maybe we should have stopped there and not got into nation building. But at the same time, it was the best thing to do for the people of Iraq. In hind sight was it a dire priority based on good intel? No, but that doesn't mean it was a bad thing to do.

The 1 Trillion spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, probably includes Pakistan too, has done a lot more good than the couple more congress has wasted recently....

 

How far does privacy have to go? I think ultimatly thats a personal choice, its evident that theres alot of people who see there privacy as fundemental, and others who would forgo some privacy in the same of security. However, theres also freedom and personal rights.

Its obviously a very messy argument for both sides, one that wont finish anytime soon...not until someone files a pertition with the supereme court anyway. We all have to accept we are in a bad way, and these measures on the outside are for our protection. When you are in a bank, your watched 24/7 by CCTV and bank personal/guards. I think the idea of just airport screening is wrong, if your going to implement this under the guiss of national security, and if a threat really exsists thats so dangerous, then why not have them everywhere.

Its like the government and smoking. Now they claim to have the best interests at heart of the consumer, but if they REALLY did they'd ban all import and sale of tobacco. That would be drastic, but that measure would ultimatly secure most peoples health, and thus the same should be for scanners.

I think if these scanners where completly automated there would be no problem. In other words the scanner itself detected discrepenses in the image, not the human eye. I guess with anything new it takes time to iron out the creases, im confident they will come up with a more private system, and if not, them we will all have to deal with it...sorry.

 

Bend over, citizen...it's for your own good - honest! It's amazing (and sad); how many people are still fast asleep. If you haven't seen it coming by now, you never will. It's nice to see at least a few individuals on this forum are still able to think for themselves.

 

And its sad to see how many people are paranoid brainwashed idiots.

 

Talk about brainwashed! Go back to sleep.:banana:

 

You know nothing of my views, someone doesn't have the same views as you, so they must be asleep, arrogant old man.

I just find it sad and pathetic that there are people from easy to live in countries like Canada, the USA and the UK talking about their own government persecuting them, go leave your cushy easy life behind and go to China, or the middle east and see what its really like.

We all know the government is out to control us, and no one likes every rule and law out there, there are many i would like changed, but some people just sound like teenagers trying to rebel against their parents.

 

its no where near as bad as in UK or Usa, especially in UK, lol they monitor your every step with those street cameras..

 

CCTV works though, especially in Glasgow, every since i moved a street up at the beginning of last year, i don't have to worry as much about my car being stolen or vandalised, as there is a camera pointed right where i park

In the last place, many times i would wake up to alarms going off, or windows smashing.

But if your up to no good, or your cheating on your taxes, or a benefit fraud, i can see how camera's could be a nuisance lol, im sure my drunken arse is on many a Friday night video.

 

So what you mean to say is our countries are so nice and cozy because of our benefactors?

Millions of people in both the British Isles and elsewhere had to fight, starve, kill and do bloody murder for almost a freaking millennium to gain an iota of liberty. Europe at one time, was the equivalent of a third world hell hole where the people were oppressed by brutish thugs. Science was not the only thing that elevated the people out of their squalor, the accumulation of power by tradesmen/financiers created a middle class that was able to endure against the monarchists.

Prosperity cannot co-exist with sufficient abuse of power.

 

I do know that, my own country does have a very long history of oppressing people too, and we will always have those at the top abusing power, but it doesn't mean 100% of the people are doing 100% of the time.

I also realise many of us live in a nanny state, it was re-enforced when i was on holiday last week, when over there people freely walked naked on beaches and at hotel pools, the roads had no traffic lights, tourist spots with huge drops to your death had no safety barriers, people smoked indoors and walked about the streets drinking alcohol, and initially it was scary, but i did enjoy the freedom of it, and im sure my eyes will be opened even more when i go to Holland, but tbh i don't think the UK, or the US would be ready for that sort of freedom.

All laws take away our freedom and rights, and are designed to control the mass public, thats the point.

 

That is demonstrably false.

You have no right to murder
You have no right to steal
You have no right to defraud a man
You have no right to sell poison to a child

We have laws against those things, and the many forms they take but they do not decrease your rights because you have no right to do those things in the first place. Nor under natural law can you be said to be free to do these things them since natural consequence will act as jailer & executioner to any peoples who do such things.

 

And there is no constitutional provision that I am aware of that gives the Federal Government the power/authority to shoot beams at people (that unzip DNA) in order to see them naked or be sexually assaulted to transport from within the United States.

When I studied the USSC had held that such actions violated our rights against unreasonable search and seizure WITHIN the US, however it was stated that coming into the US it was legal as it was considered a "border search".

It is completely appalling that either of these methods are being used for transportation and clearly oversteps the bounds the Fed.gov is granted under the Constitution.

What makes this even more frustrating is the .Gov 100% and completely lied about everything they were planning on doing. Several years ago they said they were not going to deploy these scanners, then they said they were only going to deploy a few, all the while the companies that make them were working overtime to fill orders the .gov already had in place. They also said they would not save the images (cached or otherwise) and it wasn't going to show private areas (as it would be blurred). Yet now, the workers can remove the blur anytime they wish and these images are being saved.

It is a complete violation of the law and in my opinion shows the true aim of the Federal government who has continually gone further and further with power grabs and erosion of our Rights all the while claiming it is for our safety.

 

Being scanned via xray at an airport and losing your overall right to privacy are two completely different things.

I would just like to remind people:
1.) If you are concerned about health issues and xrays, you can opt for a pat down. You have a non-radiation option. This might not be ideal, but you have the option.

2.) If you are that concerned and a.) Don't want someone to see a naked xray of your body and b don't want someone to give you a pat down, you can simply avoid this by not traveling via airplane. You can still travel by train/car/bus/boat. This might not be ideal, but again, you at least have the option.

3.) If you do decide to get xrayd, which lasts a whole 5-10 seconds, you don't suddenly lose your right to privacy in general. You still have a right to privacy outside of the airport.

For those of you that are absolutely against both the xray and the pat down, what security method do you recommened? Do you think there should be airport security? Do you acknowledge the fact that with our previous system, people were finding ways to get around it?

I don't live in fear, and I generally believe in the good of people, but sacrificing an xray image of my body or getting a pat down in order to gain some security advantage at an airport seems reasonable *to me*.

 

Agreed.

Agreed.

In my opinion, the Xray/pat down seem like a good idea. There's always going to be the conspiracy nutjobs that will disagree, but that is why it's my opinion

 

Yes we do, and you know people love having their genitals fondled by strangers.

For how long?

bull****. These scanners are being used on parked vehicles as well. Every iota of privacy you have is being whittled away at on multiple fronts.

We have already answered this, feel free to look it up. The rest of your questions are reducto ad absurdium mixed with straw men.

 

I said it wasn't ideal. If you don't like either option, then simply don't travel by airplane.

As long as you deem necessary. No one is making you travel by plane (unless you have an employer that requires this). I actually prefer traveling by train just because I am fascinated by them.

I know nothing about this.

So yes or no? Do you acknowledge the fact that the old system was flawed and that there were ways to get around the system?

I am not saying this system is perfect. Like I stated previously, it works for me because I don't care that someone can see an xray of my body, and the safety information gathered seems significant.

 

I think you missed the point of that statement, we have no power to stop the federal government from regulating air travel in this fashion so what gaurontee do we have that other forms will not be subjected to this as well?

One of many stories on the backscatter x-ray vans.

Try Here if you think the ACLU is too bais.