Originally Posted by lawleypop

It's the same logic when I've been pulled over driving around at 3 am when I was 16. The only "valid" reason behind it is because "there have been a small amount of idiots in the past who ****ed things up for everyone else."

Not exactly a reasonable reason.

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


Maybe if it was 100% effective, then people's rights being infringed upon could be justified.

the way i see it is that people are only trying to do their job, its their responsibility
do you disagree with all laws because someone messed things up for the rest of us in the first place? should the gun club be able to bring guns to campus? the high school i went to used to have a firing range the basement

and trains, buses or w.e are in no way on the same level a plane, furthermore planes can be hijacked to cause further damage

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.

Everything else.

Could not have said it better.

If there was some evidence of these scans actually being effective, and implemented everywhere, then we could have a discussion about the blatant violation of civil liberties, and whether the added security is worth it. (PROTIP: It isn't)

Until that point though, its just another example of rushing to "do something" rather than doing something effective.

It maybe uncomfortable for many if not all, and there are all kinds of concerns with either scans or full body searches.

but we have to keep in mind what happens when precautions are not taken. I mean who would like to fly with a person that has weapons or is smuggling drugs on the plane... and plane hijackers are not myths but a real possibility. in the past, more than a few planes went down, or had to land elsewhere carrying at least one or many victims due to negligence at airport security, allowing for dangerous people that have weapons to board a plane and play with everyone's lives and safety.

I think for the safety of all, there needs to be great security.

I agree though on the subject that flying these days is a hassle, with all the liquid limitations, baggage, and sheety food. But thats just part of globalization, the increased amount of world travelers daily. it is getting so busy that they are trying to make everything more efficient and less time consuming...

however i dont get how crappy food helps anyone.. if anything creates stomach problems and starves people. lol

But in all seriousness, they have yet to catch a potential terrorist through airline security measures. If the TSA ever actually managed to stop a terrorist plot, you would hear all about it.

Originally Posted by Marlowe

But in all seriousness, they have yet to catch a potential terrorist through airline security measures. If the TSA ever actually managed to stop a terrorist plot, you would hear all about it.

While it's true the TSA hasn't caught a terrorist attack on the US, all terrorist attacks on the USA involving planes have originated from Europe. Since the implementation of body scanners in all the major European airports that allow for transatlantic flights there have not been any successful terrorist attacks. I'll let you decide whether this is coincidence or not. But for certain, the body scanners have caught and exposed many illegal drug/human trafficking groups, so they are certainly helping to at least some extent.

If body scanners are properly implemented there is only one method that can be used to bomb a plane that remains. That method is to surgically implant plastic explosives into your own body. So while no security will ever provide 100% effective security, the scanners do help. Do you think the benefit they are having is worth the invasion of privacy?

I feel sorry for fat people

Originally Posted by REPLEKIA/.

While it's true the TSA hasn't caught a terrorist attack on the US, all terrorist attacks on the USA involving planes have originated from Europe. Since the implementation of body scanners in all the major European airports that allow for transatlantic flights there have not been any successful terrorist attacks. I'll let you decide whether this is coincidence or not. But for certain, the body scanners have caught and exposed many illegal drug/human trafficking groups, so they are certainly helping to at least some extent.

If body scanners are properly implemented there is only one method that can be used to bomb a plane that remains. That method is to surgically implant plastic explosives into your own body. So while no security will ever provide 100% effective security, the scanners do help. Do you think the benefit they are having is worth the invasion of privacy?

I expect better logic from you, Dave. >_>

LOL, the uproar about this is hilarious to me. I suppose I'm the only person who doesn't really care. Feel/scan away, it's just the human body.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

I expect better logic from you, Dave. >_>

It's hard to get solid facts on things that didn't happen. I'll I'm saying we can't claim that they have had no effect on stopping terrorism since there haven't been any terrorist attacks. That's not to say that without them the same would be true. Neither side can be irrefutably proven at this point, so I'm trying to get people to try and consider both sides of the coin. Makes for better discussion.

Keep in mind the article I linked to mentioned that the TSA as a whole has not stopped any attacks, not just the scanners. They've been in existence for almost a decade, and have nothing to show for it except arresting drug traffickers and illegal aliens (both people who've committed victimless crimes). Well, that and the hassle.

Obviously its hard to measure if there's some form of deterrent effect, but if there was there should have been some change in the number of terrorist attacks since they were formed. There hasn't been.

Ben Franklin said it best:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither and will lose both."

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)

What's your source for this? Having flown out of Pearson and Fiumicino since March (I went in July), I did not experience any body scans or pat-downs.

Originally Posted by Marlowe

Ben Franklin said it best:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither and will lose both."

I can see why some people might have a problem with this. I'm okay with it as long as my family/friends don't have access to the images. lol. That would be so awkward.

well i'm pretty sure you are more likely to die from some drunk drivers on the road then by a terrorist. So why hasn't the government forced mandatory breathalyzer for everyone to start a vehicle.


Sometimes I wish I was Vulcan then i could understand peoples logic.

Originally Posted by thedog123123

well i'm pretty sure you are more likely to die from some drunk drivers on the road then by a terrorist. So why hasn't the government forced mandatory breathalyzer for everyone to start a vehicle.

Probability of incident occurring ≠ Ramifications of incident

If I remember correctly, one of the more recent terrorist attacks (I believe in Russia?) involved women implanting bombs under their breasts through surgery (or just putting bombs in their body anywhere through surgery) and they would blow them selves up like that.
With these new scanners, apparently they cannot see through your body at all (just as the picture in the article suggests), so if a terrorist wanted to blow something up, all they could do is put a bomb in their body and walk through the scanners as if nothing was wrong.