Women banned from flight for refusing scan

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Ya I think what imaginary meant to say was that these women first lined their vaginas with lead. Then they concealed the gun in their vagina so they could make it through the metal detectors undetected! Watch out I smelll another made for TV movie!

Yeah thats a brilliant point actually I seem to have overlooked, regardless of where the gun was hidden it would still show up on the body scan. Maybe imaginary knows something we don't?

I also find it very strange he thinks body scanners are an invasion of personal privacy but doesn't mind body searches were someone actually physically runs their hands over him?

Strange...

Originally posted by jem78
Does anyone know if children are being scanned too? Or what age scanning starts at? Just curious.

They ought to be if they aren't. The last thing we need are terrorists finding out that children aren't being scanned and start using kids to transport their explosives. Not that it doesn't already happen; just saying...

reply to post by v3_exceed


Not sure you quite understand but the idea of the scanners is to detect the explosives before they are set off!

Least invasive way? Surely that would be a photograph wouldn't it? Or do you also think scanners are an invasion of personal privacy but you don't mind being physically touched?

I'm surprised you don't think "it invades your personal space"

reply to post by Carseller4



Agreed.

I'm sure all the victims of 9/11 would prefer a full body scan as opposed to burning to death in the crash.

So many alternative ways of travel, pick another.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
I wouldn't say calling someone boring is an insult, more rather a descriptive term. Maybe you should try and be thicker skinned

I am not upset at the insults, i bring them up only to show that you are struggling in your arguments, there is no reason to insult someone in a debate other than because you are struggling. You had no reason other to bring up such a thing other than a lame attempt at deflecting the arguments made.

And here you are trying to provoke an angry response in the hope you can get my posts deleted or simply to entertain yourself. It's transparent I enjoy pointing it out

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Thanks for the story, I was surprised actually. But the scanners will prevent guns being smuggled onto a plane so surely if this even knocks a minute percentage of terrorism activity on a plane then its worthwhile?

So once again i can use your argument to justify body scans. Lets go through it point by point.

1. The scanners cannot detect guns in a womans vagina but you are happy to use the scanners to possibly prevent terror.

2. It is easier to hide a gun in a vagina than a gun upon yor person.

3. Therefore it would logically follow that as it is very hard to detect a gun in a vagina you would support cavity searches.

4. If you don't support cavity searches you are drastically increasing the chances of airbourne terror and this seems at odds with your motives for allowing scanners.

On top of that forget the gun and go back to explosives if you're all upset about the metal detectors (which i explain in the below post).

Originally posted by Death_Kron

We will have to agree to disagree.

Good that we can agree on something.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

They would also invade personal privacy to a much greater degree than a simple body scan.

Oh absolutely, no question they would. However your logic is that the more lives that can be saved the more you are willing to sacrifice privacy.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Then the system isn't secured very well.

Sometimes that is the case, however when it is such an easily accessable system it is much harder to sort out. Think about this for a moment, if it were as easy as you say then why hasn't it been done? It would cost very little to implement the system you recommend. I must admit i don't know the full specs of the system.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Please could you explain how this isn't an invasion of your personal privacy but a simple scanner image is? I'd love to hear how you don't have a problem with that, surely someone touching you is more invasive than a photograph?

Someone is touching you over your clothes. Do you consider a hug invasive? I have been hugged by perfect strangers and it never seems invasive. Now if i were naked it would be a different story What i am arguing against, to make it absolutely clear is this. Oh and i'll compare it to a pat down while i'm at it.

The scanners prevent absolutely nothing because they can be circumvented by hiding things internally.

A pat down will not reveal such items either but it is conducted over the clothes, no nakedness. Again i don't care about being seen naked, i just get annoyed when i am not given an option, i am being told i must be naked by government orders.

The question arises, why do we need the scanners when dogs can sniff out the explosives and pat downs work effectively? Why is it that Israel can stop these attacks without scanners and we can't?

I would ask you to deal with the Israel question as you have avoided it thus far.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
At this point your argument falls to pieces.

Not really as i explained above

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by roche


I really hope you are being sarcastic with the Muslim remark. If not that is a pretty racist comment. Bottom line is everyone is going to have to do it...unless you have power. Then you don't have to follow the rules. (That was sarcasm)

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Yeah thats a brilliant point actually I seem to have overlooked, regardless of where the gun was hidden it would still show up on the body scan. Maybe imaginary knows something we don't?

You guys have never heard of composite pistols? They can fire a few shots before being useless, as can the ceramic kind. Once again you guys just show an absolute ignorance of smuggling.

Why i am bothering with people who don't know these simple facts i am not sure anymore.

reply to post by v3_exceed


I think you should re-read some of what Kron says because clearly you missed the point. Having scanners in the airport equals damage limitation. I also replied to you and from what you said the scanners would do more good at the airports front doors. Your privacy is invaded every day and I checked your profile and you haven't opened any posts about those ideas so why are you so fed up with this one. Lets see, credit checks, TB test, physicals, and just about anything else job related is against your privacy but you seem to have a lapsed on making topics about those invasions of privacy. Also the whole point is that the scanner isn't outside your house, it's at an airport where you DON'T HAVE TO BE! So inconclusion like we've said to many a person here you don't have to fly, it's a privledge not a right and if you'd like to have your own airline policy start your own country and open your own airport. Funny thing is you still wouldn't be able to fly into anywhere since not using the scanners is now a violation of many if not all UN Countries.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


And those two things you mentioned wouldn't show up on an Xray???? Anything that holds solid mass would show an anomally on the screen, again any other point you need muted?... Just ask!

By the way you need ignorance, look in the mirror pal.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by NoJoker13]

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

And those two thing you mentioned wouldn't show up on an Xray???? Anything that holds solid mass would show an anomally on the screen, again any other point you need muted?... Just ask!

As i understand these scans they only go past the clothing, it's not a full body MRI. But please correct me if i'm wrong. So you havn't muted a thing.

And again i bring up how explosives can be stored internally

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I am not upset at the insults

Good, because calling someone boring isn't an insult, maybe if I had added an expletive at the end but I didn't ...

And here you are trying to provoke an angry response in the hope you can get my posts deleted or simply to entertain yourself

Sorry but I don't find you that exciting.

1. The scanners cannot detect guns in a womans vagina but you are happy to use the scanners to possibly prevent terror.

X-Rays do and we already have them.

Oh absolutely, no question they would. However your logic is that the more lives that can be saved the more you are willing to sacrifice privacy.

And your logic is the leads to the opposite, more life can be lost the more privacy passengers retain...

A pat down will not reveal such items either but it is conducted over the clothes, no nakedness. Again i don't care about being seen naked, i just get annoyed when i am not given an option, i am being told i must be naked by government orders

So why aren't you annoyed when your told and required by the government for an officer to physically touch you if you value your "privacy" so high?

reply to post by rcwj1975

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?

The airlines were never given a choice? The Government claimed jurisdiction over airline travel. This is not an issue about a business running it's own affairs, it is about a business's affairs being intruded upon by Government.

hence that PRIVATE service makes the rules

Hence, no they don't...

[edit on 4-3-2010 by harvib]

Originally posted by Death_Kron
X-Rays do and we already have them.

I'm sorry, when do they use x-rays at an airport as standard practice? Please point that one out, and i mean x-rays on humans not luggage.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

And your logic is the leads to the opposite, more life can be lost the more privacy passengers retain...

My logic is that hardly anyone has been killed in airline terror when you thnk of the number of years it's been around. You are more likely to be killed by lightning. It's fear mongering.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

So why aren't you annoyed when your told and required by the government for an officer to physically touch you if you value your "privacy" so high?

I get hugged pretty often, human contact isn't a big issue for most people.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

So from what I gather from your statement the scanners should be at the airport's front door? Otherwise I don't see where your going with that? Since all you seemed to prove is that the airports could have detonations inside and therefor need the scanners at the front doors as well.

Once again, the real issue here is being derailed. Security after the fact isn't security at all. The use and implementation of these devices is flawed. The gun in the vagina argument is moot (not mute) as a metal detector would easily find it. (Now comes out the argument of the porcelain Glock that maybe 3 terrorists would be able to afford.)

The reality is that these scanners have little to do with security and a lot to do with the industry of terrorism. Without looking at the larger picture, this becomes a circular argument. By endorsing the use of ever increasing, personal right violating resources, you are admitting defeat to the terrorists ideology. And you are doing to willingly, in your case enthusiastically.

..Ex

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Once again, the real issue here is being derailed. Security after the fact isn't security at all. The use and implementation of these devices is flawed. The gun in the vagina argument is moot (not mute) as a metal detector would easily find it. (Now comes out the argument of the porcelain Glock that maybe 3 terrorists would be able to afford.)

Ok forget the gun and lets stick to explosives, they can be hidden very easily in the same orifice. And without being unkind it is very easy to build a one use composite weapon, as long as you stick to a small caliber and reduced loads. Note i'm in the UK so i can't build weapons, i just happen to talk to people who know about it.

Originally posted by v3_exceed
The reality is that these scanners have little to do with security and a lot to do with the industry of terrorism. Without looking at the larger picture, this becomes a circular argument. By endorsing the use of ever increasing, personal right violating resources, you are admitting defeat to the terrorists ideology. And you are doing to willingly, in your case enthusiastically.

Agreed and again i'll quote Benjamin Franklin

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

That sentiment is lost on many here.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


www.wired.com...


A new one in developement, and who's to say none are in use!

Originally posted by v3_exceed

The reality is that these scanners have little to do with security and a lot to do with the industry of terrorism.

I agree. The threat of terrorism is overblown. Try living in the U.K. during the 70s and 80s, every night on the news people were being blown up or shot by the I.R.A.

If however these scanners can save even one persons life then they are worth the inconvenience of a very low resolution image.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Says benjamin franklin's quote is wasted on alot of people here including yourself. Since your okay with some privacy's being invaded but you have a problem with others. I'm still waiting for your no Physicals to get a job thread.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by NoJoker13]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I'm sorry, when do they use x-rays at an airport as standard practice? Please point that one out, and i mean x-rays on humans not luggage.

Oh dear! The very scanners you are debating against can spot metallic AND non-metallic objects regardless of where they are hidden.

Security officials claim it is a far more effective way of countering potential terrorists because it detects the outline of any solid object — such as plastic explosives or ceramic knives — which conventional metal detectors would miss.

Link

My logic is that hardly anyone has been killed in airline terror when you thnk of the number of years it's been around. You are more likely to be killed by lightning. It's fear mongering

You have already been proven wrong with regards to the lightning.

I get hugged pretty often, human contact isn't a big issue for most people

Surely a security guard touching your skin physically is more invasive than a scan image?

Your argument has fallen to pieces once again...

reply to post by v3_exceed


How bout we just seek the better alternative, just bar every single flight to middle eastern or terrorist countries!!!! That should solve it! Also realizing that there is a problem with something isn't a fault, and trying to improve on a situation isn't either. Terrorists aren't just going to disappear tommorow and having a machine that could find some is a welcomed device.