Originally Posted By Dabob2 Really? These people are doing a job that is probably pretty boring to them. I can't imagine one in a thousand would get their jollies feeling up a kid. And any patdown can have a witness if requested, so you can watch. Predictably, we're hearing the horror stories (the colostomy bag and the like) in the news, because they're more interesting than "thousands go through scanners at JFK without incident." <(perhaps I can meet up with family in Canada or something).> 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.
Originally Posted By ecdc I just think this is lose/lose for the government. If we did what Israel did only on our huge scale, then can you imagine the uproar from the cost? I can see the Fox News headlines now: Government Spends Billions of YOUR Tax Dollars to Have...Psychiatrists?!? At the Airport!
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight <<And any patdown can have a witness if requested, so you can watch.>> Can you request who you want to watch get patted down? just askin'. Hey CC, we may want to sign up for this! ;-)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I do think the question of deterrence is a valid point. We'll never know how many would-be terrorists have decided it's too risky to attempt to duplicate 9/11.
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight K2M, there will always be people that will find a way to ruin thing for others and our safty measures that we have now will turn others away from it. There nevers going to be a full proof make everyone happy and feel safe way. Thats the truely sad part about all this.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yep. To me, the frustrating part is that terrorism is less about the actual number of people they kill and more about building a certain level of fear and paranoia. It's a form of psychological warfare really. And, sadly, the desired effect has been achieved. If 120 people died each day as a result of terrorist attacks in airports and airplanes, the airline industry would be gone in a matter of weeks. But that's about the number of people who die in traffic accidents each day. The biggest risk in air travel is the drive to the airport. But most of us are far more nervous about air travel itself, and the threat of terrorism. It's a strange psychological phenomenon how we elevate and suppress various concerns.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And I'm not viewing this like some scientist, saying I'm above it. I am far more nervous about flying than I ever would be about driving. Perhaps it's because with flying, you have to let go of so much control (other people fly and maintain the aircraft, the security procedures, air traffic control, etc) whereas in a car, you have at least some control over your fate. Even though you really are more vulnerable in a car, it feels safer to the reptilian part of the brain.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> 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. We (USA) urge and encourage other nations to provide adequate screening, and many of them do. But we don't control the entire planet. Since 9/11, no terrorist attempt on aviation originating from a US airport has been attempted - that we know of, and I'm sure we'd hear about it if it happened. And the attempts that have occured have originated outside the US. That might be because terrorists feel that their odds of 'success' are better if they start from a location with less stringent security measures. And I'll also repeat my earlier statement - that people who are opposed to these screening measures aren't offering up a better solution. Some are even saying to just skip the entire process altogether and let everybody take their chances. Others are resorting to specious arguments about molestation, sexual abuse of children, and the pervy ulterior motives of these federal agents. These are not effective arguments. You'd be better off taking the 'liberal' tack and grouse about unreasonable search and fourth amendment protections. I don't agree either way, but I can at least grant some credence to those "leftie" arguments. When people start in with the rhetoric about feeling up little kids and nuns, and/or how it's unconstitutional to have your sex organs imaged, credibility goes out the window.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Here's a simple alternative worth considering: Essentially distorting the scanning images into "fun house mirror" distortions. Any smuggled item would still be visibly obvious while a persons particular body shape would be unrecognizable. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/21/AR2010112104456.html?tid=wp_featuredstories&sid=ST2010112104457" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...12104457</a> The suggestion is offered by physicist Dr. Bill Wattenburg, who hosts a late night radio talk show on KGO radio in San Francisco.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I'm against it. The only reason to do it would be as a sop to the loudest voices - even though their concerns about being viewed 'below the belt' aren't valid or rational.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Now here's a uniquely american response - ingenuity! >> It's a special kind of underwear — with a strategically placed fig leaf design — and a Colorado man says it'll get you through the airport screeners with your dignity intact. Jeff Buske says his invention uses a powdered metal that protects people's privacy when undergoing medical or security screenings. The items are up for sale at RockyFlatsGear.com. Buske of Las Vegas, Nev., said the underwear's inserts are thin and conform to the body's contours, making it difficult to hide anything beneath them. The mix of tungsten and other metals won't set off metal detectors, he said. <<
Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40314817/ns/today-today_fashion_and_beauty/" target="_blank">http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/..._beauty/</a> Above is a link to the news story with pics of the fig leaf underwear. And I guess I should state that this seems silly too - people should question where this deep-seated urge to prevent anyone from seeing their jewels comes from. No place healthy, that's certain.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat >>And I guess I should state that this seems silly too - people should question where this deep-seated urge to prevent anyone from seeing their jewels comes from. No place healthy, that's certain.<< Lets all fly naked then.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The only reason to do it would be as a sop to the loudest voices<< Ah, so the answer is "no compromise." Great. Anyone uncomfortable needs to get over it. You asked for an alternative and yet you don't like the alternative -- that would still do exactly what's being done now, by the way. No more nor less effective, either. But it represents a simple, no-cost compromise solution. You get the scans you think are important, while people embarrassed about outlines of their junk get a little comfort knowing everything would be distorted and altered. I don't get the objection to that.
Originally Posted By debtee Mr X. We have owned an International freight company for 20 years. I understand International freight! You can be pedantic as you want to be, saying things like "Seriously, you believe that? ". I also did not say "EVERY PIECE OF CARGO is checked all over the world." I said Air Freight is scanned for Bombs at point of Origin.... Sea Freight is not. These rules have been in place since 9/11 it's not anything new.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I also did not say "EVERY PIECE OF CARGO is checked all over the world." I said Air Freight is scanned for Bombs at point of Origin.... Sea Freight is not.>> I'll take your word on that but the recent event involving printer cartridges seems to indicate that the cargo scans are no more effective than the passenger scans.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If Wattenburg's alteration really does still show the stuff that shouldn't be there, why not?
