shallowdeep
Posts: 343
Joined: 9/1/2006 From: California Status: offline
|
It took me a moment to decide if you were being serious with your posts, but I'm assuming you were… quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol Yeah, but that's just the thing... they're not effective at helping in detecting explosives when they've been... how to put this... stuffed inside the body. True, but this was never a selling point or an ability claimed by the devices, so I'm not seeing the relevance. Being unable to detect "stuffing" doesn't necessarily render the technology a "turkey." I actually think a claim that such scans don't provide at least some additional security beyond what's presently in place is difficult to support. Is there anything in particular you read or saw that led to your use of the "ineffectual" label? The cost, in terms of both invasiveness and monetary expense, versus the security benefit is far more debatable. Of course, what constitutes invasiveness is a bit subjective. You certainly aren't alone in being more comfortable with a pat down, but that actually seems to be a decidedly minority view. If you would care to elaborate any, I would be interested in knowing why you hold such a strong opinion. Are there any measures that could be taken to make the technology less "disgusting" to you? Or is it simply irredeemably unconscionable?
|