Invasion of privacy or cost of security?

Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 7:18:55 PM)
quote: Full-Body Scanners A Reality After Botched Attack The Christmas Day attack on a jetliner over Detroit, combined with technological improvements to protect people's sense of modesty, could lead to dramatically wider use of full-body scanners that can see through travelers' clothing. Dutch officials said Wednesday they will immediately begin using the machines at Amsterdam's airport, where the Nigerian accused of trying to blow up the Northwest Airlines plane began his flight. And a key European lawmaker also called for greater use of the scanners, which are designed to spot explosives and other non-metallic objects that a metal detector would miss. In the U.S., the Transportation Security Administration has not said whether it will accelerate its plans to roll out the machines. TSA already operates 40 of them in U.S. airports, has bought an additional 150 and plans to buy 300 more. That covers only a small slice of the 2,100 security lanes at the nation's 450 airports. But TSA could find the climate more favorable for an expansion. http://cbs4.com/national/full.body.scanner.2.1398125.html So, are we trading privacy for security? and is it worth the trade? or does the idea upset you? Can this possibly make you feel safer?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 7:36:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So, are we trading privacy for security? Yes. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl and is it worth the trade? I don't know. I could make a halfhearted argument in either direction, but don't really have strong feelings one way or the other. It won't do any good. You can easily fit enough explosive to bring down an airplane up your ass, and this technology won't detect it. If they install these machines at every airport, the terrorists will just adapt by sticking the bomb up their ass. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl or does the idea upset you? Somewhat. Not because it's an intrusion, but because it's a pointless intrusion. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Can this possibly make you feel safer? Yes, it would. Marginally. But that wouldn't be relevant to me, because i already feel very safe on a plane. The idea of feeling safer than I already feel has no value to me at all.

starshineowned -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 7:52:01 PM)
Greetings.. Revert the world back to before Eve ate that apple, then smack the bitch for even thinking it. Problem solved. No issues with being nude. Save on luggage hauling as well. Not sure how to tackle the asshole bombers yet but I'll think on that one. starshine

thornhappy -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 7:57:34 PM)
possible hijack... I'm thinking our society's going to have to realize at some point that there are no perfect defenses, is no perfect safety, and that a dedicated terrorist will always find a way. There are so many points of weakness that we can't close them all. (After all, drugs are regularly smuggled into high-security prisons.) David Hockenberry once wrote that in the US we expect everything to work perfectly, and other cultures he'd lived in expected things to go wrong as a normal part of life. I'm wondering some early utopianism in our society's led to our expectation that everything will be fixed for us. Now, as to these detectors...they were in the testing phase at Schilpol. They aren't sure that the conformal bombs would be detected without more testing, but people want the systems thrown into service. Remember the "puffer" systems that were supposed to save us from explosives? They worked ok in the lab, but died like flies in the field due to everyday dust and dirt, AND they didn't pass tests (detect explosives) even when they were functioning. So we could be heading down the same rat hole, fielding an unproven, expensive system.

Aneirin -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:16:26 PM)
When an aircraft can be used as a weapon to attack whoever there will always be a need for security, but what has to be taken into account by the advocates of increased security measures in airports, is where is the cut off point, at what point is the security issues worth more than the comfort of the travelling public. Now if it comes to be all rights, senses of decency and privacy are ripped open in the name of aircraft security, I know I will lessen my air travel, not that I travel much by air anyway these days. If vacation was to be the US, an increase in security to the level that it is a complete hassle to fly there, simply I will go elsewhere. Now I believe I am indicative of many others here, it is not nice nor friendly to be treated as a potential terrorist just for purchasing an airline ticket to visit another country. Just to note, I always get hassle at airports, long hair and individuality make me stick out like a sore thumb. I always get searched and put through the questions, whilst the normal people slide through unchallenged. To my mind, it is within the normal people that security has to look as terrorists on their way to a mission like to travel unnoticed, the oddball is the least of anyone's worries. A way to reduce if not stop these terrorist actions, simple, stop fucking the people of these countries and beliefs off.

Kirata -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:21:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda It won't do any good. You can easily fit enough explosive to bring down an airplane up your ass, and this technology won't detect it. If they install these machines at every airport, the terrorists will just adapt by sticking the bomb up their ass. I'm willing to be enlightened if you're in possession of facts unknown to me. But from what I've read, explosives have a density that is greater than biological tissues and can be detected in body cavities by either conventional X-ray or THz scans. I suppose an explosive sniffing dog would be more cost-effective, though. They'd just have to require everyone to eat beans 1 hour before their flight. K.

lusciouslips19 -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:25:22 PM)
I really dont want them to be seeing my tampon!

kdsub -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:26:48 PM)
When I go to my doctor he often has me take my clothes off...I'm not offended... When I am changing into swimming gear at a pool dressing room I am not offended. If I take a shower at my local health club i am not offended. Come on how silly. It would be simple to have scanners for men and women and have same gender operators in different viewing rooms hidden from the scanned and rules that all scans are immediatly destroyed. Butch ps not meant for kirata but the general posting population.

Aneirin -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:35:10 PM)
Yeah, that's a point, those that like showing themselves will have a field day with these scanners, just think what might be seen, on men it is obvious. But, there still exists a problem with these body scanners, in the UK a sub 16 year old cannot be scanned due to legality, when will it be terrorists may take the form of a child, perhaps a child in the company of an adult. Just to remember, in parts of the world the age of what is deemed to be a child and what is not varies and with that, the maturity.

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:39:58 PM)
What legality would prevent the scanning of a minor? Im confused, they dont walk around metal detectors there, do they?

Sanity -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:42:55 PM)
Think about it. [img]http://www.drudgereport.com/scan.jpg[/img] quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl What legality would prevent the scanning of a minor? Im confused, they dont walk around metal detectors there, do they?

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:45:52 PM)
The same argument could be made for any radiologist in any hospital, especially childrens' hospitals.

popeye1250 -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:47:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Think about it. [img]http://www.drudgereport.com/scan.jpg[/img] quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl What legality would prevent the scanning of a minor? Im confused, they dont walk around metal detectors there, do they? Hey! Isn't that "DomKen?"

Sanity -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:50:14 PM)
People don't like it, thats just the way it is. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The same argument could be made for any radiologist in any hospital, especially childrens' hospitals.

kdsub -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:51:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Yeah, that's a point, those that like showing themselves will have a field day with these scanners, just think what might be seen, on men it is obvious. But, there still exists a problem with these body scanners, in the UK a sub 16 year old cannot be scanned due to legality, when will it be terrorists may take the form of a child, perhaps a child in the company of an adult. Just to remember, in parts of the world the age of what is deemed to be a child and what is not varies and with that, the maturity. I'm a man...looking at a child produces no sexual reaction to me...all should be scanned or they will start putting explosive clothes on unknowing children. I'll say again all should be scanned no exceptions or it will not work as already shown. Butch

popeye1250 -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:56:01 PM)
KD, I totally agree! And I'll be volunteering my services at our airport here.

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 8:56:19 PM)
my thoughts exactly Butch. No need to keep any scans unless something is questioned... and the scanners dont have to have access to the hard copies. Its so simple. Sadly, nothing will change until they actually find something on a child.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:09:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda It won't do any good. You can easily fit enough explosive to bring down an airplane up your ass, and this technology won't detect it. If they install these machines at every airport, the terrorists will just adapt by sticking the bomb up their ass. I'm willing to be enlightened if you're in possession of facts unknown to me. But from what I've read, explosives have a density that is greater than biological tissues and can be detected in body cavities by either conventional X-ray or THz scans. I suppose an explosive sniffing dog would be more cost-effective, though. They'd just have to require everyone to eat beans 1 hour before their flight. K. I may be mistaken, but from what I've heard on the radio the terahertz scans don't penetrate that deeply. The photos I've seen of the technology in action seem to confirm that, but perhaps they're just stock photos and not accurate depictions of the imagery of which the scans are capable. I'll need to do a little more research. I would imagine that over the next days and weeks, there'll be a lot more information in the news regarding this technology, and it will probably have been fact-checked more thoroughly than some of the articles out there right now.

Aneirin -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:11:27 PM)
Whatever is thought of to counter the terrorist threat will be got around, it is as simple as that. Perhaps parallels can be drawn with the criminal world, in no matter how good your security becomes, if someone really wants to access your privacy, they will gain access. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that if a human mind creates something, then a human mind can break something. Now maybe it is those that wish to become terrorists, or train terrorists are fully aware of security, and what is changing, it is a challenge to them, to find a way to achieve their aim, the kudos in the eyes of their supporters being they achieved what they did and they foiled the security set up, even if they did not achieve their aim, they still got through the security which gives increased motivation to other would be terrorists. How many aircraft terrorists have been found to be thick, from what I understand, they all tend to have been university qualified, that shows intellect and there the ability to think. What would be better to avoid these attacks, is address the problem that is creating the terrorist in the first place or we are all going to have to succumb to loss of rights if we wish to travel by aircraft.

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:15:07 PM)
Q: What sorts of things can they find? A: The machines are designed to uncover what a physical pat-down could turn up but a metal detector wouldn't find. That includes plastic or chemical explosives and nonmetallic weapons in a pocket or strapped to someone's body. The machines would also find guns, knives and other metallic objects that would set off a metal detector. Q: What can they not find? A: Generally, the machines can't find items stashed in a body cavity. So the scanners wouldn't stop at least one common smuggling method used by drug traffickers. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/the-truth-about-airport-body-scanners-20091231-lkhb.html Doesnt seem like it can do cavity scanning, Panda.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02