Women banned from flight for refusing scan

Originally posted by Death_Kron
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.

Erm you just destroyed your own argument because i can use your argument to justify the internal scans

Originally posted by Death_Kron

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.

This comment is incredibly ignorant. Say i have a job and my boss walks up to me and says "hey we need you to go to australia". Well i now have a choice, i can fly or tell him no and maybe lose my job. Going by land or sea takes over and month and costs a great dael more. So it's fly and be scanned or lose my job and end up in massive financial trouble.

As i said before it's like someone about to shoot you giving you the choice between a shotgun or a pistol. Yeah you have a choice but neither is good.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

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

You are then storing images and that will not be allowed because of privacy laws. Further it coudl be argued it would be production of pornography without the models consent

reply to post by NoJoker13


Also in reply to myself even if the images produced by the scanner are "real" I still have no problem with this. Like I said if they asked me I'd drop trow right there... I would.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by NoJoker13]

Originally posted by NoJoker13


Also in reply to myself even if the images produced by the scanner are "real" I still have no problem with this. Like I said if they asked me I'd drop trow right there... I would.

You seem to be under the common delusion that people wh are against these scanners are worried about revealing their bodies. I don't give a damn who sees my body. I only take issue with being told when to take my clothes off, well i mean i take issue with the authorities saying it just so i can fly.

Flying is a privilege, not a right. Taking a cab is a privilege, not a right. I read somewhere that someone said is walking down the street a right? Well, yes and no. If you are a convicted felon on house arrest no but if you are not yes. You have the right to walk down the street. However, a police officer, at any time, can stop you and pat you down on the street. They are looking for thing to harm people or what is on your person.

Example - If your drivers license if one day expired from your flight date you can be refused. Rules people...rules. You might be pissed but you should be prepared.

Flying is a purchase and with said purchase there are rules. Rules are put in place to protect people. There are those out there who WANT to harm not only US interests but many interests abroad. I fly quite a bit for work and pleasure and the pain in the ass it is to take off my shoes and belt and take out my laptop take a few extra minutes.

It would not surprise me if this is a plant to challenge these machines.

As far as people stealing your pictures to go whack off to...folks, there is a thing called the internet where you can find midgets covered in gold having tantric sex with dead animals...google it....

[edit on 4-3-2010 by esdad71]

Can anyone provide any factual source to answer the question:

Do private companies have a decisive vote in whether or not body scanners should be mandatory?

So far I've got this:

Originally posted by SilentShadow
Someone needed to actually do the research. All this talk about Airports being privately owned...

Q: Who owns airports?

A: Most U.S. commercial service airports are typically owned by local or state governments, either directly or through an authority (a quasi-governmental body established to operate the airport). While Congress established a "privatization program" in 1997 under which the airport ownership would be transferred to a non-governmental entity, no airports currently participate in this program. However, The Branson Airport (in Missouri) became the first privately financed and operated commercial service airport in the United States when it opened in May, 2009.

Source: Air Transport Association

Unless i read that wrong... ONE airport in the US is privately owned.

Originally posted by SilentShadow

Originally posted by Snarf
Hmm, you aren't required to be scanned before entering an AIR PORT

you are required to be scanned before entering an AIR PLANE

and last time I checked - those are owned by private business.

Airport security has NOTHING to do with the airlines. They are all run by the airport AND in the US by the TSA.

If these scanners are brought by private entities then it is almost incredible how all companies use them. You would imagine at least some would want to strategically take a risk of not choosing them.

I am very opposed to these as well, since it looks like you simply cannot choose. It's like banning smoking because it is a security threat during flight. I know that "security" issue is a holy grail of profits, but surely at some point common sense would awake among people.

[edit on 4/3/2010 by SassyCat]

[edit on 4/3/2010 by SassyCat]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Erm you just destroyed your own argument because i can use your argument to justify the internal scans

No, because you draw a line. Hence my comment about there being a massive difference between internal cavity searches and simply passing though a scanner...

This comment is incredibly ignorant. Say i have a job and my boss walks up to me and says "hey we need you to go to australia". Well i now have a choice, i can fly or tell him no and maybe lose my job. Going by land or sea takes over and month and costs a great dael more. So it's fly and be scanned or lose my job and end up in massive financial trouble.

Unfortunately you don't make the rules and thus have to abide by them...

You are then storing images and that will not be allowed because of privacy laws. Further it coudl be argued it would be production of pornography without the models consent

I'm well aware of the privacy rules and as I said you do not store the actual image, each image is simply recorded by a timestamp and identification number, no images are stored.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

You seem to be under the common delusion that people wh are against these scanners are worried about revealing their bodies. I don't give a damn who sees my body. I only take issue with being told when to take my clothes off, well i mean i take issue with the authorities saying it just so i can fly.

Well said. Thanks for saving me the typing.

As for flying not being a *right* - Am I the only one who gets nauseated when I hear that BS? Regardless of the truth to it or not?

peace

I fly across the pond fairly regularly.

I know I have to take my shoes off, remove my belt, put all metal objects in the tray, carry fluids in a little plastic bag etc. It is annoying but if it helps keep me safe then so be it. (It takes a couple of happy pills and a few beers to get me on in the first place.)

Yet I can guarantee every time there will be someone ahead of me in the queue who will throw their toys out of their pram because they believe they are to important to go through the same security measures as everyone else.

If scans help keep us and the cabin crew safe onboard then, great. The images they produce are hardly Playboy centerfold quality!

The idea of commercial aircraft being targeted by terrorists is not new, I remember hijackings in the 70s.

reply to post by silo13


Flying isn't a right.

As a poster said above, when you make a purchase you are agreeing to certain terms & conditions, if you don't like them simply don't purchase!

I find people against these scanners incredibly petty against something so minor that could potentially save lives and protect the innocent.

reply to post by BritofTexas


Exactly. Everyone has to go through the same procedure, its no big deal.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
No, because you draw a line. Hence my comment about there being a massive difference between internal cavity searches and simply passing though a scanner...

Yeah once again, you say we should keep these scans because they enhance safety. It would be easier for a terrorist to smuggle explosives internally and therefore the internal exams are logically more urgent to start implementing. A women would actually be the best person to carry out such an attack as they could insert a great deal of explosive into their vagina without showing any outward signs.

It's not a nice thought but if we are to combat those devious terrorists we must think as they do.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Unfortunately you don't make the rules and thus have to abide by them...

That is one of the biggest cop outs i have ever seen. We are discussing the rights of freedom and privacy, you provide arguments which can be easily turned around and so you resort to basically saying "it's illegal so that's the end of it". If that is the yard stick that we measure things with then anything can be made illegal and justified because it is illegal. Circular logic always fails.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
I'm well aware of the privacy rules and as I said you do not store the actual image, each image is simply recorded by a timestamp and identification number, no images are stored.

Ok so you have a time and number, how do you know which passenger was going through and when? How do you know a colleague was not nearby? If two people are on duty (as is usual) then how do you know which one did it? Sadly this won't work. Hmm unless we turn the technology upon them and combine the methods you suggest with video surveillance of the person actively using the device.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Exactly. Everyone has to go through the same procedure, its no big deal.

Some of us value freedom a great deal. You see freedom means you may very well face terrible consequences. If you want safety then why are you against everyone being under 24/7 surveillance? That would provide incredible safety. Lol i think people like yourself have a very strange doublethink attitude to this security.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

It's not a nice thought but if we are to combat those devious terrorists we must think as they do.

Correct we must, but if we abadoned body scanners and developed a other methods then the terrorists would simply resort back to strapping explosives to their bodies and walking happily onto the plane.

That is one of the biggest cop outs i have ever seen. We are discussing the rights of freedom and privacy, you provide arguments which can be easily turned around and so you resort to basically saying "it's illegal so that's the end of it". If that is the yard stick that we measure things with then anything can be made illegal and justified because it is illegal. Circular logic always fails.

Your freedom and that of others is being protected by preventing terrorists smuggle explosives or weapons onto a plane. Simple.

As for privacy, get over yourself its not a photograph.

Ok so you have a time and number, how do you know which passenger was going through and when? How do you know a colleague was not nearby? If two people are on duty (as is usual) then how do you know which one did it? Sadly this won't work. Hmm unless we turn the technology upon them and combine the methods you suggest with video surveillance of the person actively using the device

Scan or otherwise record the passengers plane ticket no after they pass through the scanner. As for two people introduce a logging system as I previously mentioned, each operator logs on with their UIN, its not even nescessary as it would be pretty easy to narrow down which individual did it out the pair with a little questioning and computer forensic work.

Some of us value freedom a great deal. You see freedom means you may very well face terrible consequences. If you want safety then why are you against everyone being under 24/7 surveillance? That would provide incredible safety. Lol i think people like yourself have a very strange doublethink attitude to this security.

As already mentioned you need to draw a line between preventative security and invasive security. Sadly in this case I do not classify a 3D CGI image of myself to be an invasion of my privacy.

[edit on 4/3/10 by Death_Kron]

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Correct we must, but if we abadoned body scanners and developed a other methods then the terrorists would simply resort back to strapping explosives to their bodies and walking happily onto the plane.

So hang on this comment of yours seems to support internal body searches because yo recognise that terrorists can use other methods. In fact you have agreed that using internal devices would be easier and more effective. At least you replied with the word correct to my quote so i'm assuming that is what you mean.

Hey if you say internal searches are ok and should be made mainstraem then i'll agree to body scanners, but only if you are infront of me in the queue

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Your freedom and that of others is being protected by preventing terrorists smuggle explosives or weapons onto a plane. Simple.

As for privacy, get over yourself its not a photograph.

My freedom is not protected by stopping terrorists using explosives. If terrorists suceeded in blowing something up then my freedom (if i'm alive) is in no way damaged. This is a really strange way of thinking, are you American? It's just this is an argument i expect to hear from George W Bush. A guy in London blows up Heathrow, please tell me how my freedoms are damaged.

Oh i should get over myself. Right ok so they're scanning my naked body, granted a fuzzy scan and that isn't an invasion of privacy. I'll state again, i really don't care if anyone sees me naked, i'll run around nude down the street right now (if i wouldn't get arrested), i really don't care.

I just get annoyed when the government tells me to reveal my body to get on a plane, when they don't give me an option. The sad fact is that these scanners are not the end. In years to come the technology will get more severe and people like yourself will maybe reach a point where you find it invasive. Then you will be on forums such as this, arguing with someone who is defending the technology and completely forget that you are responsible for the invasion of your privacy because you didn't stop it before it got worse.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Scan or otherwise record the passengers plane ticket no after they pass through the scanner. As for two people introduce a logging system as I previously mentioned, each operator logs on with their UIN, its not even nescessary as it would be pretty easy to narrow down which individual did it out the pair with a little questioning and computer forensic work.

It is funny you think this would be infallible. Hey you just said every system is open to abuse.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
As already mentioned you need to draw a line between preventative security and invasive security. Sadly in this case I do not classify a 3D CGI image of myself to be an invasion of my privacy.

You must also realise that freedoms in modern society are rarely taken away all at once. The tactic used is like water, eroding things little by little but over time the effects are extreme. Give it time and you will be complaining about an invasion of privacy you think has gone to far and you really will forget that you are responsible by allowing the inital damage to occur.

If these machines can find and stop bombers then im all for it, and im sure in time it will.

As for being naked, we are all naked underneath, it really doesnt bother me.

Heres my suggestion, all the ladys who object to going through the scanners must wear a strap on.

Originally posted by SilentShadow
I'm not entirely sure of this... but are we sure that it is the airlines that even dictate this? Wouldn't it be whoever owns the airport?

Just because one carrier says "we won't subject you to the scan" does not mean you won't have to scan. It is up to the airport.

Most cities only have ONE airport which means we don't get to choose. In this case, flying is a right BECAUSE we cannot choose to take a bus over seas. We only have ONE option.

You only have to buy products at Wal-mart prices IN WAL-MART. You can still choose to go to another store.

Airports you cannot.

Did you forget that BOATS still exist? You do have a right to go about freely if you choose to but, flying in a plane is not a right. These scanners are an option to the companies using them at this point but it seems they are being chosen by many already. You can choose to fly somewhere but it's choice. If you don't like the security in place at your local airport then you can choose other ways to get around, that is your right.

Originally posted by packinhit
If these machines can find and stop bombers then im all for it, and im sure in time it will.

Funny thing, any bomber that knows these machines exist will just insert the expolsives within their bodies, so i guess cavity searches are next

Actually this thread has raised a raelly important point. Why exactly have there not been more attacks? I mean seriously it would be so very easy to design a bomb and insert it within a man or woman. It just reinforces the idea that the terrorist threat is overblown.

In fact take a look at one of my other threads.

The True Odds Of Airbourne Terror

Odds of being killed by lightning 1 in 500,000

Odds of being a terrorist victim in a flight 1 in 10,408,947

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

So hang on this comment of yours seems to support internal body searches because yo recognise that terrorists can use other methods. In fact you have agreed that using internal devices would be easier and more effective. At least you replied with the word correct to my quote so i'm assuming that is what you mean.

I replied "Correct" in response to your ending statement that to beat terrorists we must think like them. As I said previously you have to draw a line and I think body scanners are a good compromise between nothing and internal cavity searches.

If you think we shouldn't have body scanners then how do we combat the possibilty of someone smuggling weapons or explosives onto a plane, please explain?

I just get annoyed when the government tells me to reveal my body to get on a plane, when they don't give me an option.

How can you get annoyed at something designed to protect you? It's like you believe these scanners are intended to "take away your rights"

What do you think we should do? Give terrorists the option to walk through one or not?

It is funny you think this would be infallible. Hey you just said every system is open to abuse.

Every system is but you can only do your best and in this situation I think it would be a pretty secure method of detering misuse.



[edit on 4/3/10 by Death_Kron]

Originally posted by rcwj1975
It blows my mind how people think THEY can dictate how others run their own companies. Bottom line is these companies set their own rules and guidlines...they owe you or me NOTHING, and we CHOOSE to use their service..i.e. follow their rules....how is this so hard to get, and better yet what basis is your anger on?

Do I think its over the top, sure, but again the rules aren't mine to make since I don't own the planes or airline. For those of you pissed off...get together and buy a few planes, start an new airline and set your own rules and regs...problem solved....until then, we have no place telling PRIVATE companies how they should operate just because we don't like their way of doing things.

Agree 100%, if i refuse to get searched by a door bouncer they have the right to refuse me entry into their enterprise..Its their choice to grant us these rights to travel with their transport systems..Especially muslims should go through these scanners as they are 9 out of 10 the people who blow up planes, crash them into towers etc.
These two women wanted to go to Islamabad, i hope they get there somehow by boat bus or car and stay there untill one day they find some enlightenment and realize there is much more in life then this oppresing and totalitarian ideology/religion..



p.s what has become of us people since the beginning of mankind that we want to blow up these wonderfull flying machines full of people and refuse to go through these scanners[and why we need them] because they show us naked? WIsh eve never took that apple...

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Foppezao]

It started with kiosk in the middle of the airport.. Then came the ropes to stand in line by... Then came the sheep pen like ropes to keep you in one place.. Then the body searches.. The x-ray machines... The taking your shoes off... Bag searches... The whole time a conditioning process is going on.. You go from the rope to the pen to the body searches and now to all of the above and a body scan...

Can't you see what is really going on? And has been for years? It about conditioning for control.... How many people use airports all over the world everyday?.... MILLIONS..... What a perfect way to get you conditioned for control huh?? Justify the increase in control by a contrived terror threat then run with it... Little by little, much like the slow boiled frog, you fall into their trap.. But much the same as the frog... Once the water starts to boil its too late....

Good on these ladies for protesting... We should all start doing it.. I guarantee the air companies would soon change their tune.. Then TPTB would have to find something else to use...

Im not saying we don't need security.... But when that comes to my freedom being taken I would rather take my chances....

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Yissachar1]

Originally posted by Death_Kron
If you think we shouldn't have body scanners then how do we combat the possibilty of someone smuggling weapons or explosives onto a plane, please explain?

Israel has a vey effective system that does not use these scanners. How do you think they have gone without an attack? They are bigger targets than the USA or UK. Apply their system and remember that a dogs nose is infinitely more accurate than our most sensitive bomb sniffing technology.

Once again i can turn your own argument around and apply it directly to the counter position and if that can be done it means the argument is inately flawed. So here i go, i'll apply it.

If you think we shouldn't have cavity searches then how do we combat the possibility of someone smuggling weapons or explosives onto a plane please explain

Originally posted by Death_Kron
How can you get annoyed at something designed to protect you? It's like you believe these scanners are intended to "take away your rights"

Once again, many things can be designed to protect me, including cameras in my own home. So why don't you accept cameras in your own home? I am willing to bet you'd get angry about that. So again i'm simply reversing your argument.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
What do you hink we should do? Give terrorists the option to walk through one or not?

Use the technology we always have, increase the number of sniffer dogs (no machine can currently compare the the nose of a sniffer dog) and hope nothing happens. Oh and your scanners won't prevent a damn thing because once again people can insert explosives within themselves so when i talk about hope we are on equal ground.

You need to recognise something about freedom and privacy. Living in a society with both of these things means that one day you may very well be killed by someone who is against them. That is the price we pay, it is a steep price but i pay it gladly. Even if i die myself.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Every system is but you can only do your best and in this situation I think it would be a pretty secure method of detering misuse.

Really? I don't mean to be rude but i worked in computer security for a number of years, it would be easy enough to bypass it with a little knowledge.