Originally Posted By debtee <I don't know about Canada, but I've been scanned and patted down more in Europe than I ever have in the US. They've been doing it there for a long time. > Yes me too. In fact I have been patted down more in Asia, then any other country. This is not something new, people on here are acting like it's all new and scary when the rest of the world has been doing it for years, it's become part of air travel and if you travel often, you get used to it and just want it over and done with ASAP.
Originally Posted By SoothsayerTheThird For those of you who do not understand what is at stake here the great and powerful Zoltare5 will enlighten this panel on Dec. 1 2010. Please be present as Zoltare knows and sees all and will materialize right here on the World Events. Also, if you have any burning questions please come prepared so Zoltare will have time to entertain all who ask. Thank you for your support.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> If Wattenburg's alteration really does still show the stuff that shouldn't be there, why not? << Why? Why suffer the irrational concerns of foolish people? Why deliberately obscure an image that practically nobody will ever see anyway? Why dumb ourselves and our tools down in an attempt to placate people who may or may not believe it? Over the past week this story has exploded within the media - it's the new ground zero mosque. And once again we have people that are expressing concerns that are not rooted in reality. Blurring the naughty bits doesn't help anything, it's just offered as a compromise that's ultimately meaningless and only offered to make people feel better about something they don't understand. It's a compromise to ignorance and fear.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The entire security process air travelers are forced to endure is a compromise to ignorance and fear. The terrorists have won.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> If Wattenburg's alteration really does still show the stuff that shouldn't be there, why not? << <Why? Why suffer the irrational concerns of foolish people? Why deliberately obscure an image that practically nobody will ever see anyway? Why dumb ourselves and our tools down in an attempt to placate people who may or may not believe it? > I hear you, BUT... I try to see other people's side, and I recognize that not everyone is as comfortable with this as we are. There's a lot of "body shame" in the culture, and that's not going to go away any time soon. Yes, these are essentially glorified x-rays, and no one who sees zillions of them as their daily routine is going to get their jollies looking at them. But if this alternative exists that is just as effective in spotting stuff that shouldn't be there and is low cost exists, I have no objections to it, even if, yeah yeah, it concedes to a concern that is pretty irrational. To me the salient question is: "does it work." If this alteration works just as well, even though it may stick in the craw to give in to irrationality, when it comes to body modesty that's kind of irrational to begin with, and hard to change.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Blurring the naughty bits doesn't help anything<< But it doesn't hurt anything, either. It doesn't get in the way whatsoever with what the scans are trying to do. There is zero effect in terms of how effective (or not) the scans will be. Sometimes it's really okay to compromise, especially when it's basically painless and free to do so. Or, you can draw a line in the sand and say no, people have to be comfortable with their bodies being scanned and if they don't, they're messed up and stuck in some puritanical shame based mindset. Really, which is more reasonable?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I don't know about Canada, but I've been scanned and patted down more in Europe than I ever have in the US. They've been doing it there for a long time*** I can sail from Tokyo to Canada.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***>> TSA and other airport security teams ... allow underwear bombers and shoe bombers and liquid bombers to slide through << This has come up a couple of times now and has gone unchallenged. Both of these guys originated in other countries - TSA didn't "allow" them through*** Thus the "and other security teams" part.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "***>> TSA and other airport security teams ... allow underwear bombers and shoe bombers and liquid bombers to slide through << This has come up a couple of times now and has gone unchallenged. Both of these guys originated in other countries - TSA didn't "allow" them through*** Thus the "and other security teams" part. " But NOT TSA so let's not lump them together, shall we? TSA has yet to allow in any type of bomber.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But NOT TSA so let's not lump them together, shall we? TSA has yet to allow in any type of bomber*** How do we know *that*? As Passholder pointed out, they might just be keeping quiet about stuff.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip But is that because of TSA airport screenings, or because improved U.S. intelligence and no fly lists keep the terrorists from showing up at the airport in the first place? I believe the latter type of security is essential. I'm just not sure the former provides enough additional protection to be worth the cost and inconvenience.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***But NOT TSA so let's not lump them together, shall we? TSA has yet to allow in any type of bomber*** Additionally, the underwear bomber boarding an aircraft at all is at least partially the fault of the TSA and other U.S. agencies. We knew all about him, and in fact he was put on a watch list. Just not the right one. On November 11, British intelligence officials sent the U.S. a cable indicating that a man named "Umar Farouk" had spoken to al-Awlaki, pledging to support jihad, but the cable did not reflect Abdulmutallab's last name.<61> Abdulmutallab's father made a report to two CIA officers at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, on November 19 regarding his son's "extreme religious views",<4><62> and told the embassy that Abdulmutallab might be in Yemen.<6><19><33><63> Acting on the report, the suspect's name was added in November 2009 to the U.S..'s 550,000-name Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, a database of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. It was not added, however, to the FBI's 400,000-name Terrorist Screening Database, the terror watch list that feeds both the 14,000-name Secondary Screening Selectee list and the U.S.'s 4,000-name No Fly List,<64> nor was his U.S. visa revoked.<19> U.S. State Department officials said in Congressional testimony that the State Department had wanted to revoke Abdulmutallab's visa, but U.S. intelligence officials requested that his visa not be revoked. The intelligence officials' stated reason was that revoking Abdulmutallab's visa could have foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida.<65> Abdulmutallab's name had come to the attention of intelligence officials many months before that,<66> but no "derogatory information" was recorded about him.<41> A Congressional official said that Abdulmutallab's name appeared in U.S. reports reflecting that he had connections to both al-Qaeda and Yemen.<67> The NCTC did not check to see whether Abdulmutallab's American visa was valid, or whether he had a British visa that was valid; therefore, they did not learn that the British had rejected Abdulmutallab's visa application earlier in 2009.<9> The British did not inform the Americans because the visa application was denied to prevent immigration fraud and not for a national security purpose.<9> On Christmas Day 2009, Abdulmutallab traveled to Amsterdam, where he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 en route to Detroit. He had purchased his ticket with cash in Ghana on December 16.<114> Prior to boarding the plane eyewitnesses Kurt Haskell and Lori Haskell testified live on CNN that they witnessed a "smartly dressed Indian man" helping Abdulmutallab onto the plane.<115><116> They also testify that the ticket agent refused to allow Abdulmutallab on the plane because he did not have his own passport. <117> New restrictions were imposed on U.S travelers, but the government was vague about many of them because it "wanted the security experience to be 'unpredictable'".<131> One day after she said that the system had "worked", Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano acknowledged that the aviation security system had indeed failed.<132> I'll skip the link because of the large number of expletives in the comments' section, but in any case this was clearly a failure of AMERICAN intelligence on many levels, and saying "hey, he boarded from a foreign country so leave the TSA alone!" is a crock.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "...but in any case this was clearly a failure of AMERICAN intelligence on many levels, and saying "hey, he boarded from a foreign country so leave the TSA alone!" is a crock." Some of you here are very entertaining. Ever since 9/11, the world is not the same place, Never will be, ever, ever again. Our world was changed by a group of whackos who use our very way of life to attack us. The freedom to move freely, protections from governmental intrusions, all that. Officials implement new procedures in response to the New World Order built in no small part on intelligence that was culled from whackos they've captured. No attacks on our soil ever since. Now, suddenly, whiny butt crybaby Americans, tired of being treated like everyone else all over the world, throw hissy fits over these same rules, methods and procedures. They do so to the point of straining like crazy like X does to find fault with the U.S., to the point where he seems to take great joy in once again ripping America. He cries he'll never come here again. Fine, don't. It's the 21st century and the world will never be 20th century again. Passenger jets were officially made weapons of mass destruction on 9/11. Forever. Want to fly? Your junk ain't that special, America. Learn to deal with this, as it will never be the same again.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Ever since 9/11, the world is not the same place*** Meh...I don't buy it. Religious zealots have been terrorizing whole populations for millennia. That "everything is changed now" is just a right wing talking point to keep people in line. If they really want to change our civil rights, they need to amend the Constitution.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Now, suddenly, whiny butt crybaby Americans, tired of being treated like everyone else all over the world, throw hissy fits over these same rules, methods and procedures.>> Sorry, but the FACTS do not support your statement. <<While U.S. air travelers struggle with strict new security checks, screening is generally less up close and personal at airports in other parts of the world, where preflight intelligence is emphasized. That puts the priority on identifying sophisticated threats in advance so that procedures many people consider personally invasive aren't the crucial last line of defense.>> Source: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40318044/ns/travel-news/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40...el-news/</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux Except that the airport is ALWAYS going to be the "last line of defense" - it has to be. I know you're advocating for a more laissez faire approach to passenger screening, but you're in the fringe on that one. The fact is we must do what we can, and screening technology represents a step toward making the process as efficient as possible, given the constraints of the task that TSA is dealt - preventing explosives from getting on aircraft. Passengers are only one part of that task, but it's the part we see every time we fly. Let's not forget that our enemies were able to bring down a 747 just a few months ago. It was filled with packages instead of people, but nevertheless there were fatalities involved - not to mention a valuable aircraft. This isn't some academic exercise to a theoretical threat we're facing here - it's real and it's enormous. And the response isn't "theater", not is it an illusion - it's a practical response to quickly and efficiently screen thousands of passengers every day. It should also be noted that not everyone is subject to these enhanced security screenings - in fact far fewer than half. Most people are still directed to pass through the now traditional magnetometers and that's the end of it for them. Others are selected for greater screening - sometimes randomly, sometimes because they either set off the alarm or some other circumstance - often those that have metal in their bodies or some extenuating circumstance. In these instances, the scanning is the fastest and least intrusive way to determine that they present no further cause for concern. Yes, there's been a recent spate of news stories about screening excesses and anecdotal incidents where TSA has overreacted and caused real anguish and embarrassment to completely innocent people. Darn shame that - it shouldn't happen. But neither should it be allowed to derail an entire system put into place for the safety of the public. Let's not lose sight of the big picture here - this isn't some plot to foist government control over a weak-spined populace, it's to prevent atrocities to innocent people. How can anybody be against that?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones If the terrorists want to see dead Americans they should simply encourage them to drive more.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Let's not lose sight of the big picture here - this isn't some plot to foist government control over a weak-spined populace, it's to prevent atrocities to innocent people. How can anybody be against that? >> Because it sucks. Life is full of risks and uncertainties. There is absolutely no way to eliminate them. How far do we let the government go to minimize risk for the populace no matter how remote that risk might be? Do we require lightening rods on every home? Do we require tornado shelters in the backyard of any home not having a basement? Yes, 3,000 people were lost on 9/11. Damned shame, that. But are we going to let that dictate our every action in the future? Did we forbid the rebuilding of Galveston after 11,000 people died in a hurricane there? Did we forbid the rebuilding of San Francisco after 3,000 died in the great quake? 9/11 was an incredibly horrible event but what is the possibility it could happen again... even without the TSA show? Somewhere between slim and none. What does the TSA do? They react to yesterday's news.. they guard us against something that will likely never be tried again. I just don't get it. I don't want to die, but I would rather travel without hassle and accept a marginally greater risk that I might die in a terrorist incident.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***what is the possibility it could happen again... even without the TSA show? Somewhere between slim and none*** A bomb might down a plane in future, that's a definite possibility (TSA or not), but a 9/11 thing where they use the planes as weapons is of the REMOTEST likelyhood imo because a) pilots are secure in their flight decks and wouldn't allow any evildoers to enter and b) the passengers would take them out in the meantime. I'd worry more about some other plot towards some other mode of transportation (Or, as many have pointed out, to a bomber targeting those Disney style snake-lines around the TSA checkpoints).
