Women banned from flight for refusing scan

Originally posted by waycoolsnoopy
Good grief. You are still on this whole "airports are private entities" "airlines are the ones willingly subjecting their customer base to a virtual proctological exam" etc...

Your right, my fault for not being clear enough. When I say airport, in my mind I mean the airlines. So thats on me...so let me be clear.

Airports...the buidling in which houses TSA security and these scanners. Ok Government owns them...BUT

Airlines...the actual plane that takes you from point A to point B. Not owned by the government, i.e. PRIVATE companies.

So you guys arguing this are saying because the PRIVATE airlines made a deal with the government to run their security for them so they don't have to worry about that aspect of the industry, their private rights as a service mean nothing?

Its still their private service that we want to use, and if THEY say...hey you can fly on MY planes from delta, us air, southwest, etc...BUT, we want you to adhear to the TSA security rules and regs...how is that wrong?

I understand the machines are over the top. There may be health concerns, and its a royal pain in this butt...but its still a PRIVATE service your asking to use, hence that PRIVATE service makes the rules, NOT us...even if those rules are parterned with TSA. When the government buys out an airline and uses tax dollars to fly us around, then I will gladly stand side by side with you and bitch about how I am treated to board an aircraft WE own.

The World is blind to the fact that all the false flag scenarios since 9 11 have striped our freedoms bit by bit right in our faces! We talked about this back in the 60ts, we used to say those straits are going to squeeze us to death, meaning taking away our liberties!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I understand exactly what your saying and I'm not advocating extending my argument to include those ridiculous invasions of privacy.

However, my point still stands, imagine what would be said or how people would feel if those two women were in fact suicide bombers and because they wernt scanned they succeeded in blowing up a plane?

What goes for one must go for all, if everyone was being scanned then those two women had no right to refuse and personally I believe the "religious reasons" is a pathetic attempt at a get out of jail free card.

If you have nothing to hide then why refuse to be scanned? Of course extending that rule is ridiculous i.e. installing cameras in peoples homes etc but we are talking about an airport here with thousands of peoples lives potentially at stake!

If those two women were singled out and only they were asked to be scanned then yes I can understand their argument in refusing to a degree but at the end of the day how many times are the government lambasted for not being pro-active in fighting terrorism?

reply to post by SilentShadow


airports which don't install all this useless crap
will get blackmailed and attacked - guess by whom

reply to post by rcwj1975


I don't understand your point.
I can't see the difference if the airlines are govt. or privatly owned.
The govt. has demanded these scanners be used...period...the god has spoken.

Privacy rights are goners.
Think I'm letting my hot blonde wife go through? Think I'm letting my girls go? Boycott

Might as well just hire some old pervs to feel up the passengers...oh I mean frisk them.

I hope inside, you see the problems with all this.

reply to post by SLaPPiE


Yeah, of course these scanners are being introduced because the government wants airline workers to perve on the unsuspecting public...

See how you feel when your wife or children are blown to pieces on an aircraft where the airport doesn't scan people.

[edit on 4/3/10 by Death_Kron]

Originally posted by Death_Kron
I understand exactly what your saying and I'm not advocating extending my argument to include those ridiculous invasions of privacy.

However, my point still stands, imagine what would be said or how people would feel if those two women were in fact suicide bombers and because they wernt scanned they succeeded in blowing up a plane?

So you consider those ridiculous, on what grounds? You see this is the problem, some peopel are happier than others for their privacy to be invaded, it's where you draw the line. These machines strip people, that is a gross invasion when many people simply have to fly, no way around it. There are also health concerns. On top of that it has been reported that images have been surfacing online of people in these scanners!

I wonder what will happen if/when a celebrity goes in one and their pictures appear online.

As for them being suicide bombers, well people will always say more could have been done, there is no way around it. I bring up the point i made previously, if two people stick explosive devices up their anus/vagina and blow up a plane then it could have been prevented by cavity searches. When/if this happens will you be one of those asking "what more could have been done" and asking for these searches to be made mandatory?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
What goes for one must go for all, if everyone was being scanned then those two women had no right to refuse and personally I believe the "religious reasons" is a pathetic attempt at a get out of jail free card.

I think the article says they were selected, not that everyone was being scanned, i may be wrong but i think that's what happened. Still i agree this reason for a complaint is unfair. However i would argue quite stonrgly against these machines for multiple reasons, including the fact they won't stop terror attacks because terrorists will just start inserting the devices within their bodies.

Hey forget sticking it up your rear end, people regularly swallow drugs in condoms, you could do the same with explosives and vomit them up in the plane. See there is no way to stop a determined terrorist, well not without a full MRI

Originally posted by Death_Kron
If you have nothing to hide then why refuse to be scanned?

I cannot believe you actually just used that argument lmao. Nothign to hide nothing to fear? Then please allow the government to chip you, install a camera in your home and track you everywhere you go. Why not? Nothing to hide nothing to fear.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Of course extending that rule is ridiculous i.e. installing cameras in peoples homes etc but we are talking about an airport here with thousands of peoples lives potentially at stake!

There are millions of people in the country an installing a camera in every home coudl potentially save thousands of lives, so the argument is not ridiculous. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

Originally posted by Death_Kron
If those two women were singled out and only they were asked to be scanned then yes I can understand their argument in refusing to a degree but at the end of the day how many times are the government lambasted for not being pro-active in fighting terrorism?

Actually i lambaste the government for being to severe in their war on terror. The women it appears were singled out, along with a few other passengers. But again please check i haven't got that fact wrong.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

I am sick to death of these scanners. I worry about the health implications and has anyone even looked into this? Prob not.

Also, if there that worried about terrorist i have the perfect solution:

You have a Bomb proof room made up and rig it up so it sets explosives off. You walk inside and if you have a bomb it detonates the bomb and the person carrying it to hell. Save us a fortune in court costs and no one has to worry about stupid body scanners.

Sounds like a perfect solution to me....

Peace

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


You have just repeated three of your previous statements about invading personal privacy when I have already stated that I don't agree with them.

So I suppose you believe we should scrap CCTV cameras then? How about get rid of the police officers on th beat because they may be invading our privacy?

You can't compare mandatory vaginal or anal searches to these machines, theres a gulf of a difference between the two and you know it. I understand the pont your making; where do you draw the line?

But are you that bothered that someone sitting behind a machine may see you naked in a preventative measure to reduce terrorist attacks?

That speaks more about personal insecurities to be honest, the machine operator isn't sitting there "checking" you out in that manner and you know it.

As for the potential for misuse well that exists in every system and process on this planet, nothing can be done about that, punish the individual responsible.

Originally posted by gYvMessanger
People should be stopped if they refuse to be scanned for weapons.

Sorry that's the world we live in. 100 peoples lives > your misplaced sense of embarassment at a scanner which sees you 'naked'.

Exactly - and so they had veils (according to a few media sources) - it's not like you would know "who" they were then, if the pictures would eventually BE circulated.

All it takes is a bit of pressure from ULTRA liberal groups, which in turn relaxes the rules for what is, let's face it, part of the most likeliest of demographs, only to then allow a suicide bomber/terrorist on board.

THEN, you will have hate-filled media and public derision at Muslims in general - which is wrong.

So, a small piece of misplaced embarassment is THE smallest of prices to pay for a safe flight (all possible technical safety faults aside, of course).

Also and it's a cliché but one that works in this instance - if you've got nothing to hide from what the scanners try to uncover (pardon the pun)...what's the problem?!?

That said, I don't think self-confident people woould care about this anyway, I think the outrage is superficial (yes, along with this comment), whether you're a self-confident asian, anglo saxon, latin american, african american or any other creed. Vanity knows nothing of race!!!

reply to post by TailoredVagabond


Agree with you 100%.

People get embarassed when they have to drop their pants at the doctors and pull back their foreskin but if it prevents a potentially deadly STI or STD then obviously its the right thing to do.

Originally posted by Carseller4
There is no right to fly on a airplane.

Don't like it?

Take a bus.

really that is your answer??

Everyone has a right to fly and they also have a right to refuse being scanned! How do you expect people to go to countries where you NEED a plane? I myself am terrified of flying and you can bet your bum that when I go to Paris in November I will get on a plane but I will NOT go through a scanner. I will find a route that doesnt have them. I dont agree with them myself, they are an invasion of personal privacy. I dont want strangers looking at my body and maybe getting their jollies off later...you never know!

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Carseller4

 

How does one define what is a right and what isn't?

Is walking on the street a right?

Exactly ! Once the door is opened to one form, or one location, you can rest assured that these will be installed all over, wherever it is "determined" to be a "high risk" area.
Airports, Bus Terminals, Train Stations, Stadiums, Theme Parks, Malls, Stores, ENTERING A CITY, CROSSING STATE BORDERS, and the list goes on and on.

Holding the hand of big brother and its mandatory subscription to the fear based paranoia, put in place, and held in place by a continued willingness, is evident in statements like the one quoted.
The justifications to embrace weakness, and that's what they are JUSTIFICATIONS are pathetic.



[edit on 4-3-2010 by HappilyEverAfter]

im against the machines deffinately...but this particular situation is complicated.

without being too stereotypical the majority of suicide bombers and terrorists are usually muslim.

so when a muslim person refuses to be scanned it raises eyebrows.

my first guess as to why she refused would probly be that she thaught the airport was picking on her alone...when EVERYONE goes through these scanners regardless of their nationality, skin colour, religion etc etc so there would be no reason for her to refuse. (obviously other than the personal privacy an all that)

as much as i disagree with the scanners...i wouldnt have let her fly either.

she was just being stubborn and because of the unfortunate correlation between terrorists and muslims...it just makes her look more suspicious.

The women who wanted to board the aircraft are not so special they should not have to follow the screening protocol. In my opinion this is another muslim false flag attempt like the imam issue of a couple of years past. They are trying to set a new standard for unscrupulous reasons. If you want to get on the aircraft go through the screening like the other passengers. If you feel you are too good for the screening, walk.

Originally posted by slicobacon
The women who wanted to board the aircraft are not so special they should not have to follow the screening protocol. In my opinion this is another muslim false flag attempt like the imam issue of a couple of years past. They are trying to set a new standard for unscrupulous reasons. If you want to get on the aircraft go through the screening like the other passengers. If you feel you are too good for the screening, walk.

Correct!

It's got to be the same for everyone, regardless of skin colour or religion.

If the protocol to board the aircraft is to go through the scanner then thats what you do. Don't like it then find another way of getting there.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
So I suppose you believe we should scrap CCTV cameras then? How about get rid of the police officers on th beat because they may be invading our privacy?

A police officer on the beat is walking the streets where every other person can so i fail to see how they could be invading our privacy by doing what anyone else can. That's a really poor comparison. As for CCTV i actually think it needs to be massively scaled back. Forget the privacy issue, the cost in London alone is astronomical and yet it only helps solve a handful of crimes.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
You can't compare mandatory vaginal or anal searches to these machines, theres a gulf of a difference between the two and you know it. I understand the pont your making; where do you draw the line?

Why can i not compare them? Hiding an explosive device in one of those orifices would be insanely easy and i struggle to think why it has not yet been tried. Maybe because the threat is less than we are led to believe? Still the point stands rather tall, it would be easy to hide a bomb in such a way, in fact it would be better hidden than anything these machines can detect.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
But are you that bothered that someone sitting behind a machine may see you naked in a preventative measure to reduce terrorist attacks?

That speaks more about personal insecurities to be honest, the machine operator isn't sitting there "checking" you out in that manner and you know it.

Oh dear me you actually threw out an ad hominem, suggesting it is my insecurity with being seen naked. Check the thread, i say clearly i coudl happily walk down the local high street, buck naked and i'd have a bit of a swagger. It would be funny, i have no issue with my body and showing it off. I do take issue with being told by authorities that i have to show it, have to, not i have a choice to.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
As for the potential for misuse well that exists in every system and process on this planet, nothing can be done about that, punish the individual responsible.

If the system didn't exist it could not be abused As for punishing the individual, i'm afraid it's near impossible to find the individual if they're uploading photos taken from their phone, onto a work computer and then onto the internet. Oh and as for operators not checking people out, well why are there pictures circulating online if that is the case?

A police officer on the beat is walking the streets where every other person can so i fail to see how they could be invading our privacy by doing what anyone else can. That's a really poor comparison. As for CCTV i actually think it needs to be massively scaled back. Forget the privacy issue, the cost in London alone is astronomical and yet it only helps solve a handful of crimes.

Every one can fly as long as they go through the scanners.

Why can i not compare them? Hiding an explosive device in one of those orifices would be insanely easy and i struggle to think why it has not yet been tried. Maybe because the threat is less than we are led to believe? Still the point stands rather tall, it would be easy to hide a bomb in such a way, in fact it would be better hidden than anything these machines can detect

Maybe so, but thats like saying theres no point in having bouncers on the doors in a nightclub because people can still smuggle drugs past them or they can still covertly smuggle a knife in.

Oh dear me you actually threw out an ad hominem, suggesting it is my insecurity with being seen naked. Check the thread, i say clearly i coudl happily walk down the local high street, buck naked and i'd have a bit of a swagger. It would be funny, i have no issue with my body and showing it off. I do take issue with being told by authorities that i have to show it, have to, not i have a choice to.

You do have a choice, its simple; part of the boarding process includes security checks going through the scanners. If its that much of a hassle to you then find a different way to travel.

If the system didn't exist it could not be abused As for punishing the individual, i'm afraid it's near impossible to find the individual if they're uploading photos taken from their phone, onto a work computer and then onto the internet. Oh and as for operators not checking people out, well why are there pictures circulating online if that is the case

Actually it would be pretty simple, each operator has a unique identifying number and each image isn't stored but assigned a recorded image number. That way each image can be pinned down to what operator was using the machine at the time

Originally posted by telfyr
you pay more for less service.
you get what you want.
you is elite.

complaining

written in stone.
scramble a lot of letters here.
it just wont make a tasteful soup.

or could it taste like?

Can you stop your psycho babble already? I guess you haven't noticed that your lack of stars indicates that no ones interested in it. It's worse than Vogon Poetry FFS!

IRM

reply to post by SilentShadow


It is absolutely rediculous that these women wouldn't go through this machine. Just a little FYI for everyone, it doesn't show a real time image of you it shows a CGI representation!!!!! So whats the big deal with a security gaurd looking at a 3D impression of a naked you? I mean people make such a fuss that the airports aren't safe... then people say that these machines are invading privacy!!! Take your god damned pick people!!! I'm sick and tired of everyone's feelings being hurt by something so trivial!!! If I could walk in to the airport naked I would, just my two cents. Also I bet both these women are ugly as sin.