Originally Posted by lawleypop

Still waiting for when all this nonsense gets applied to trains, etc and people will be "outraged" by that but not by this.

I am inclined to agree with you on this. If anything, the density of people and frequency of use associated with trains/subways makes them easily as much of a threat as airplanes. I will remind everyone of the London train bombings as a case in point.

However, you can easily walk into most major US subways without having to pass through so much as a metal scanner. Though with the number of subway terminals, I must concede that full body scanners would not be cost effective in a subway and as such we are not likely to see them implemented in that setting.

No its ridiculous. I get the need to sacrifice a little bit of freedom for security. Also apparently the machines have caught the same amount of people trying to smuggle in weapons as the old scanner, the only improvement is the number of people that get caught trying to smuggle weed or drugs. I don't think thats enough of an improvement to warrant such a violation of privacy.

It's security theater. They're desperately trying to do something to quell fears, but the actions they're taking aren't actually doing much.

-The TSA are improperly doing pat-downs (Bursting a colostomy bag on a flier, not properly checking concealed locations)
-Their random checks ARE NOT RANDOM (they just pick and choose whoever they want)
-They're not being trained on the new machines/protocol (There was recently a story in the news about TSA agents missing a knife in a suitcase because they're being trained on older X-Ray's but they're using new machines)

There's also possible health risks associated with the scanners, and there have been stories of people (like Adam savage) still getting through with dangerous weapons. More importantly, the TSA are trying to solve problems by looking backwards (OMG, somebody tried to bomb a plane with a shoe? we're now going to start checking shoes because that's OBVIOUSLY what the next bomber will use as well) rather than taking preemptive measures. When it comes down to it, this just seems to be a giant excuse for politicians who have been lobbied to payback their friends by spending billions of tax dollars on these scanners.

Also, the last 4 major bombing attempts involving a US airliner (Shoe Bomber, Underwear Bomber, Cargo Plane Bombs, and Liquid Explosive Bombs) were all on international flights coming into the states. So the TSAs actions aren't going to do ANYTHING to deter terrorist, but they will invade the privacy and waste the time and money of Americans.

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

It's security theater. They're desperately trying to do something to quell fears, but the actions they're taking aren't actually doing much.

-The TSA are improperly doing pat-downs (Bursting a colostomy bag on a flier, not properly checking concealed locations)
-Their random checks ARE NOT RANDOM (they just pick and choose whoever they want)
-They're not being trained on the new machines/protocol (There was recently a story in the news about TSA agents missing a knife in a suitcase because they're being trained on older X-Ray's but they're using new machines)

There's also possible health risks associated with the scanners, and there have been stories of people (like Adam savage) still getting through with dangerous weapons. More importantly, the TSA are trying to solve problems by looking backwards (OMG, somebody tried to bomb a plane with a shoe? we're now going to start checking shoes because that's OBVIOUSLY what the next bomber will use as well) rather than taking preemptive measures. When it comes down to it, this just seems to be a giant excuse for politicians who have been lobbied to payback their friends by spending billions of tax dollars on these scanners.

I agree with a number of points here. There is clearly a lack of training with the security personnel, which needs to be addressed. And there is an obvious abuse of power by some individuals who are getting away scot-free. However the scanners are having an effect so I wouldn't go as far as saying they are 'looking backwards'. While no explosives have been recovered by a full body scan to date, large amounts of drugs have been found on people, that otherwise would have made it through older methods.

On the note of 'looking backwards' don't you think that this is necessary? After the shoe bomber we started checking shoes. Your post suggests that this is a bad idea. However, if we don't do this the possibility of another shoe bomber is quite likely. Proper airline security comes from both 'looking backwards' on past mistakes and staying one step ahead of possible future methods of attack. At least, that's my take on things.

Very interesting read. Sums up most of my feelings on the issue also.
[Gizmodo]

Essentially:

• Selection for pat-downs are not random; they select people who look like they will comply
• Improper pat-down procedure; drugs, goods and other contraband can easily go undetected
• Untrained personnel

Besides, these procedures have never prevented a terrorist attack before. And it doesn't act as a deterrent. If a terrorist wants to get a bomb on a plane, he will.

The thing is, new procedures are added AFTER the innovation of the method. Shoe searches, scanners for implants and items hidden up your ass, they all came about AFTER someone had previously attempted it.

EDIT: (Skip to 1:06)

Terrorist attacks which are actually planed by the US govt, kinda ironic huh?

I would rather a full body scan than a pat down, any day :\ I mean, those people will see your (not really all that visible anyway) naked body for what, a minute? whereas during a patdown they get to feel you up all over for god knows how long it takes to make sure you've got nothing in your butt pockets//attached to your bewbs.

I've got nothing to hide, so I'd appreciate not being thoroughly groped, thanks.

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

I also forgot to mention, the last 4 major bombing attempts involving a US airliner (Shoe Bomber, Underwear Bomber, Cargo Plane Bombs, and Liquid Explosive Bombs) were all on international flights coming into the states. So the TSAs actions aren't going to do ANYTHING to deter terrorist, but they will invade the privacy and waste the time and money of Americans.

As of march the following international airports were using the same methods of full body scanning/patdowns

· Amsterdam-Schipol Airport (AMS)
· London-Heathrow Airport (LHR)
· Manchester Airport (MAN)
· Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG)
· Rome-Leonardo da Vinci/Fiumicino (FCO)
· Toronto Pearson International (YYZ)
· Vancouver International (YVR)

So the topic of Body-scanning protecting citizens is still valid, regardless of where the plane ends up. You can't ignore the fact that Canada could potentially receive the blunt of terrorism as well. Osama Bin Laden even named Chemical Valley in Sarnia, Ontario (my hometown <3) as a potential terrorist target.

Originally Posted by SilentWalker

Very interesting read. Sums up most of my feelings on the issue also.

[Gizmodo]

While I'm sure this is a fairly interesting read, I hardly feel gizmodo is a credible source for information on this topic. Especially since they posted an article on the detail of the scans which was merely a hoax that they made no effort to verify the validity of. Turns out a website just inverted the colours on a nude model and called it a TSA scan. Gizmodo bought it hook, line and sinker. Once it was debunked on numerous sites, Gizmodo retracted the article without so much as a statement.

I don't care if somebody looks at or feels up my junk, I don't mind sacrificing liberty for security, but then again, I think libertarianism is twattery.

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

While I'm sure this is a fairly interesting read, I hardly feel gizmodo is a credible source for information on this topic. Especially since they posted an article on the detail of the scans which was merely a hoax that they made no effort to verify the validity of. Turns out a website just inverted the colours on a nude model and called it a TSA scan. Gizmodo bought it hook, line and sinker. Once it was debunked on numerous sites, Gizmodo retracted the article without so much as a statement.

It isn't a report on an 'incident' so to speak. Essentially:

Deirdre Walker was the Assistant Chief of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Police, spending 24 years as a police officer. Here she explains why the TSA's inconsistent procedures may end in public rebellion and/or a terrorist attack.

It isn't written by Gizmodo. It's written by her.

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

On the note of 'looking backwards' don't you think that this is necessary? After the shoe bomber we started checking shoes. Your post suggests that this is a bad idea. However, if we don't do this the possibility of another shoe bomber is quite likely. Proper airline security comes from both 'looking backwards' on past mistakes and staying one step ahead of possible future methods of attack. At least, that's my take on things.

The TSA rule about checking shoes was in response to the shoe bomber, the rule about liquids, was in response to the liquid explosive bomber, these new scanners seem to be a response to the Underwear bomber. Yet none of these technologies/policies have stopped the next terrorist from getting on a plane before being foiled or actually lead to the capture of a would-be terrorist (if it had led to the capture of a terrorist, it'd be paraded all over the news as a deterrent to future terrorists and to boost morale). If the TSA was actually preemptively reacting to threats and, more importantly, training their staff to more effectively recognize threats, you might have an argument, but as things stand they seem to be a wholly reactionary organization.

Also, an interesting tidbit from the a NYT article on the TSA:

Other passengers may substitute car travel for air travel. But this too has its consequences, since car travel is much more dangerous than air travel over all. According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting ground transit for air transit. That’s the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.

So this security theater may actually be causing more deaths than it's preventing...

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

As of march the following international airports were using the same methods of full body scanning/patdowns

· Amsterdam-Schipol Airport (AMS)
· London-Heathrow Airport (LHR)
· Manchester Airport (MAN)
· Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG)
· Rome-Leonardo da Vinci/Fiumicino (FCO)
· Toronto Pearson International (YYZ)
· Vancouver International (YVR)

So the topic of Body-scanning protecting citizens is still valid, regardless of where the plane ends up. You can't ignore the fact that Canada could potentially receive the blunt of terrorism as well. Osama Bin Laden even named Chemical Valley in Sarnia, Ontario (my hometown <3) as a potential terrorist target.

Unless those airports are the only ones in the world that allow flights to/over Canada/USA, my point still stands

Meh if you have nothing to hide just stand there and smile. Well maybe don't smile, just look depressed or they might suspect you have something if you smile....The thing is real terrorists will know how to get around these dumb machines, and innocent people have to be degraded because America thinks they are doing something good for humanity. What a surprise

Originally Posted by Tailsnake

Unless those airports are the only ones in the world that allow flights to/over Canada/USA, my point still stands

They pretty much do. the vast majority, if not all, transatlantic flights to NA are through the major airports listed. Simply because smaller airports don't have the capacity for the large jets used for transatlantic flights.

To quote some of your examples:
Shoe Bomber: left from Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG)
Underwear Bomber: left from Amsterdam-Schipol Airport (AMS)
Cargo plane Bombers: stopovers at London-Heathrow Airport (LHR)
Liquid Explosive Bomber: left from London-Heathrow Airport (LHR)

all of these airports now use full body scans and pat-downs.


Quite frankly I don't understand your view point. one one hand you say the scans are bad, on another you seem to support them if they are implemented properly abroad. So I have a simple question: Would you support body scanners in the event that the staff were properly trained and they were implemented as intended? This thread is based more on the ethics of the scan itself, rather than whether or not they are effective presently.

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

Quite frankly I don't understand your view point. one one hand you say the scans are bad, on another you seem to support them if they are implemented properly abroad.

My viewpoint is essentially that the scanners are not making people safer here because of a lack of training/ineffectiveness, and that even if they were effective, history would suggest that they would need to be in place abroad to actually prevent an attack.

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

So I have a simple question: Would you support body scanners in the event that the staff were properly trained and they were implemented as intended? This thread is based more on the ethics of the scan itself, rather than whether or not they are effective presently.

Assuming they're effective and the staff is properly trained, I would still question the necessity for the TSA to see naked images of absolutely everyone that flies, but I would be SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to support their use overall.