What would you do? A hypothetical question about airport scanners: security vs. privacy

reply to post by KyoZero

Who is the perv?

I don't care if it's you, the securtiy guy or a neighbor down the street. What you're happily inviting upon all of us will create massive amounts of child porn out of completely unaware people just trying to get from point a to point b.

All so you can feel warm and fuzzy about having a 1 in ten million less chance of maybe getting hurt, you're willing to pass out child porn of your neighbors kids to every stranger on the internet.

Do you understand why some people are angry about this?

reply to post by LordBucket


So what you are telling me...and I want to get this crystal clear here

Me in favor of a scanner which has a infinitely small (at least to your obviously true statistics which don't exist) am now paramount to a child pornographer. I am now in favour of child pornography. This is the point you are making to me?

Now then while you are answering that can you back up those statistics? Can you show us proof of the massive porn rings that are gonna jump out because of these scanners? Or rather should we just go to no security at all?

-Kyo

[edit on 2-2-2010 by KyoZero]

Originally posted by harrytuttle
reply to post by KyoZero

 

You would probably believe and accept that explanation too, and be completely oblivious to the fact that the selling of the information was their PRIMARY GOAL for putting in the scanners in the first place. Security? Pfff, you think they give a @#$! about your safety? Every attack results in bigger budgets for them to put in place equipment/procedures that better position corporations to make more profits. Wake up.

And if you think for 1 second they aren't going to store/match/share your data and everyone else's to increase corporate profits at your expense, then that makes you a good little sheeple.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by harrytuttle]

Excellent points and way to bottom line it for the sheeple reading this board. It is always about the money, always.

In response to the OP.

You left out my option:

Doesn't fly by choice.

Man I am so tired of the sheeple label. Mybe the sheeple are the ones who follow every single conspiracy despite concrete proof?

Still though I await an answer to my question. Are you telling me I advocate child porn because of this scanner?

Bear in mind to that I have yet to see any proof that a massive child porn ring or even a small one will erupt because of this.

-Kyo

[edit on 2-2-2010 by KyoZero]

reply to post by KyoZero

I am now in favour of child pornography.
This is the point you are making to me?

No, my point is that this will be the result of what you're promoting. Whether or not it's a desired result, it will be a result. And you're apparently willing to accept that result.

can you back up those statistics?

What statistics do you want?

4 --> Total deaths from terrorist attacks in the United States in the period from February 2004 to September 2009
Source: US National Counter Terrorism Center

28,537 --> average number of commericial flights PER DAY:
Source: US Nationsl Air Traffic Controllers Association

The odds of being involved in any kind of terrorism at all, let alone on a plane, are stupidly low. Lightning kills more people than terrorists.


So now that I've gone out and given you statistics, are you going to merrily ignore them and go right back to ranting about fear and scary terrorists?

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by KyoZero

 

I am now in favour of child pornography.
This is the point you are making to me?

No, my point is that this will be the result of what you're promoting. Whether or not it's a desired result, it will be a result. And you're apparently willing to accept that result.

can you back up those statistics?

What statistics do you want?

4 --> Total deaths from terrorist attacks in the United States in the period from February 2004 to September 2009
Source: US National Counter Terrorism Center

28,537 --> average number of commericial flights PER DAY:
Source: US Nationsl Air Traffic Controllers Association

The odds of being involved in any kind of terrorism at all, let alone on a plane, are stupidly low. Lightning kills more people than terrorists.


So now that I've gone out and given you statistics, are you going to merrily ignore them and go right back to ranting about fear and scary terrorists?

Again, what are your stats based on? AQ doesn't have any plans to carry out a major terrorism attack until 2010 to 2013.
As far a kiddie porn... that's like saying that peditricians are going to use X-rays to put on the internet as kiddie porn. Not likely.

Hypothetical topic.

reply to post by LordBucket


Those will do just fine. Now would you like to show me the proof that this result of child porn will take place?

See we've had people die from terrorist attacks but you seem to favor an option where we have no security in this OP and you really think that doing so will result in the same probability of being killed as if we had a ton of security?

Again...where is your proof that a child porn ring will result from body scanning?

And no I don't condone child porn...never have and never will

but the fact is you have no proof thta this will result in such a case

-Kyo

Originally posted by LordBucket
No, my point is that this will be the result of what you're promoting. Whether or not it's a desired result, it will be a result. And you're apparently willing to accept that result.

Where were you when x-ray machines and MRI equipment was introduced? And don't tell me this equipment cannot image genitalia, because they can, in some cases with exceptional clarity and accuracy. I have seen it myself personally, although it way my body being viewed, and I was an adult.

So, are we gonna throw all the people with access to x-rays, CAT scans, and MRIs into jail to for accessing child pornography?

The argument is idiotic, to say the least.




[edit on 2-2-2010 by Pyros]

reply to post by Pyros


Man I normally don't say this but thank goodness someone else sees how ridiculous this all sounds

Look if there were proof that this absolutely would result in child porn you would have to get in line behind me to protest it

But ya have none

-Kyo

I also happen to find it hilarious that the some people, on one hand, are willing to tell us that security is a joke because there is no real threat. They believe people who desire security precautions are deluded and buying into a story sold to them based upon phantom fears.

Yet....on the same token they are willing to try to perpetuation a conspiracy theory about a vast underground ring of child pornographers who peddle machine imagery of children to weirdos who get their jollies by leering at 3-dimensional computer representations.

Nothing like a double standard, eh?


I guess we'll just have to go back to tapping everyone's phones and reading everyone's e-mails so we can nab all these kiddie porn swappers, eh??

reply to post by sos37


What is the point of this? Because people don't want to be scanned they must not want any security?

This is an argumenitive fallacy known as a non sequitur.

Non Sequitur:
something that just does not follow.

It also falls in to the strawman fallacy.

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

How about making a critical argument with thought instead of trying to needle people with pointless questions.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by MikeNice81]

reply to post by KyoZero

you have no proof

Watch season 3 episode 7 of Penn & Teller's show. Part 1 Part 2Part 3 Amongst other things, they set up a random guy in a survelliance booth to see what he does. Let's just say he doesn't keep the cameras on the "terrorist."

Here's an article about a video camera set up in a middle school girls changing room.

Spend a few hours on 4chan and tell me how much child porn you can find being passed around.

There are plenty of people taking opportunity pictures and videos even without requiring millions of people to go through naked video and photography.


Now show me some proof that subjecting millions of people to naked video photography and radiation will stop terrorism.

I think most of us would choose something in the middle. Everybody ascribes some value to both privacy and security. Most of us are willing to give up some of one to get more of the other, but we also would like to retain some of both.

I am leaning towards plane 1. One thing the debate does not factor in is the choice made by third parties who could be affected by the passengers choices like people in skyscrapers who might be targeted by terrorists. These people may prefer choice 1 (security) just because they are not giving up privacy for the extra security, but they are losing security when the passengers get extra privacy.

reply to post by LordBucket


Yes I am aware that 4chan exists...it is disgusting as you probably know

I am also aware that child porn doesexist but where is the link to the child porn that will erupt from the techs using the scanners?

-Kyo

reply to post by KyoZero

where is the link to the child porn

I've given you links, videos, sample experiments showing what real people do given survelliance power, government terrorism sites and statistics...

It's YOUR TURN. Give me some evidence that your scans will stop terrorism.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by LordBucket]

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by sos37

 

What is the point of this? Because people don't want to be scanned they must not want any security?

[edit on 2-2-2010 by MikeNice81]

You tell me. This thought did run through my head as I was writing the original post and the part about Plane 2. Do I include metal detectors or do I make it a free-for-all? Ultimately I chose to make this a Q&A about people who value the right to privacy versus people who value security. The right to privacy means the right to privacy in every form. No one looks at you funny, no one pre-judges you, no one tries to look over your shoulder or see what's in your jacket pockets. If you're holstering a weapon, no one knows about it.

But now you are indicating that those who oppose the full body scanners, on the grounds that it is an invasion of privacy, are just fine and peachy with metal detectors? Don't metal detectors represent an invasion of your privacy as well as you're asked to de-pocket everything and place it in plain view? What about having your carry-on luggage x-rayed? Are you telling me you're okay with that on the "right to privacy" grounds?

How can you possibly sit there and say that one form of scanning your belongings and your body is not as invasive as another? Once your comfort sphere has been breached and someone else is in it, regardless of what they are doing (checking you out naked, checking your luggage out naked, going through the belongings in your pockets, making you open that DVD player), isn't your right to privacy compromised?

It's astounding to me that anyone could object to the scanners on the "right to privacy" grounds yet be find with carry-on x-rays or metal detectors. They are all a form of the same thing, they just do it differently!



[edit on 2-2-2010 by sos37]

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

In response to the OP.

You left out my option:

Doesn't fly by choice.

Well that kind of pre-supposes, then, that you won't be darkening the doorways of an airport - so the hypothetical question in it's current context wouldn't apply to you.

So what if we changed the scenario a little to include you:

Let's suppose you are offered two jobs. Job 1 is in an ultra-secure location that uses full body scanners in order to just get in the doorway. Employees are required to pass through them every day and every night (to make sure you aren't making off with top secret or hazardous goods) and have their bags scanned or ruffled-through. There can be lines to get in and out of work so they encourage you to arrive 15-20 minutes early so as not to be late for your shift. This job pays a handsome six figure salary and offers benefits.

Job 2 is a medium-security location that uses metal detectors and x-rays bags, suitcases and purses. Employees are required to pass through the metal detector and have their bags scanned. This job pays a modest middle-class income of $55,000 per year with no benefits.

Job 3 is located in a low to no security location and there are no security checks to get in or out. Security guards stand monitor the grounds and the parking lot but that's about it. The job pays about $30,000 per year with no benefits.

All three jobs are offered to you. Which one would you take and why?

reply to post by sos37

I would like to go through the body scanner just to show da ladies how big i am and i would chose 1.
If i want to blow the plane up i would go 2
But i would like more just going through the scanner with out having to fly

reply to post by sos37

You tell me.

As someone pointed out previously, there's a wide spectrum of privacy vs intrusion. For example, when livescan was first introduced and the DMV first asked me to to give them a fingerprint for a drivers license, I was annoyed to the point of seriously considering living out the rest of my life without a drivers license. It bothers me that I'm expected to have one at all even without the fingerprint.

But I've also spoken with people who've told me that they eagerly anticipate the day that GPS implants become common enough that they can have themselves and their children implanted.

There are basic humans needs for feelings of safety as well as fir feelings of self determination and autonomy. But different people experience these needs to different degrees. When I go camping, I leave my cell phone at home so I won't be bothered. Others might bring it with them and keep it on 24/7 so people can get in contact with them if "anything happens." As far as I'm concerned, if somebody I know dies...well, they'll still be dead when I get back, so there's no need to interupt my camping trip. That constant reminder that at any moment the phone might ring and yank me out of my experience really bothers me. As, I sure, some people are bothered by the idea that something "bad" might happen and without a cell phone they'll be unable to contact people for help, and unable to be contacted so they know to leave early.

I recognize that I'm personally at one extreme. I've flown single engine aircraft. I've skydived. I've gone ocean diving and seen sharks. My need to feel "safe" is probably low compared to most people. I don't expect everyone to relaate to my own way of life personally...but I think it would help us all tremendously if these people insisting that I should submit to invasive scans every time I ride a plane understand that they are ALSO on an extreme in their need to feel safe.

isn't your right to privacy compromised?

It is. And I'm tired of it. I'm willing to walk through a metal detector. I'm willing to take off my belt when I do. It annoys me...but so far I've apparently been willing to accept that amount of annoyance. But I think the amount of annoyance that we've already accepted for the sake of others who need to feel safe is well past what's reasonable and it's time for those people to stop making demands.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by LordBucket]

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by KyoZero

 

where is the link to the child porn

I've given you links, videos, sample experiments showing what real people do given survelliance power, government terrorism sites and statistics...

It's YOUR TURN. Give me some evidence that your scans will stop terrorism.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by LordBucket]

If there was a machine that would stop crime then Law Enforcement would be out of business. Huh?
But since there are people willing to commit crimes that make us employ cops, jails, courts, security officials, law makers, and a whole industry of people to deal with crime. Right?
So since now there is crimes on airplanes what would you suggest?