PDA

View Full Version : Full body scanners in airports



oliversimonnet
01-13-2011, 10:14 AM
Hey Guys

I just saw a video my friends Doing Media made at college.
And it was about "Full body scanners in airports" weather they we are giving up our basic rites or if this is necessary to prevent terrorists.

I thiught it was a good topic to see waht you guys thought about it.

Personaly i think if its preventing terrorists then yeah go for it.

My friends video (college project of theirs) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZiHkanPdR4

mattclary
01-13-2011, 11:00 AM
Which basic rites would those be? Marriage? Baptism? Or equal rites for witches?

lol :agree:

oliversimonnet
01-13-2011, 11:01 AM
I don't know what you mean haha :)
but the rite i am talking about is
"the rite for people to be secure in there persons"
that's the one i am thinking of (well if it is one haha im like 70% sure it is)

but like i said i don't have a problem with the scanners.
i wana know waht you lot think

IgnusFast
01-13-2011, 11:16 AM
neverko was teasing you about your misapplication of the word 'rite', vs. the proper word 'right'. But he probably should have just let it be, seeing just how badly you butchered the Queen's English, grammar, and case/punctuation with that last post. :)

IgnusFast
01-13-2011, 11:17 AM
As far as the scanners, I'd rather not be bombarded by XRays for anything other than a doctor's visit or a trip to Mars. I guess I'll just have them grope my junk the next time I fly somewhere.

oliversimonnet
01-13-2011, 11:23 AM
neverko was teasing you about your misapplication of the word 'rite', vs. the proper word 'right'. But he probably should have just let it be, seeing just how badly you butchered the Queen's English, grammar, and case/punctuation with that last post. :)

ooh thats painfull man haha
iv never been good at spelling lol but i get along haha


As far as the scanners, I'd rather not be bombarded by XRays for anything other than a doctor's visit or a trip to Mars. I guess I'll just have them grope my junk the next time I fly somewhere.

haha :) fair enough

shrox
01-13-2011, 11:54 AM
I drive everywhere now. I even drove from the US to the UK. I went through half a dozen pairs of windshield wipers though.

Nangleator
01-13-2011, 12:02 PM
Personaly i think if its preventing terrorists then yeah go for it.

We'd be even safer if we were all imprisoned, too, with no possessions or clothes, and with guards and cameras watching our every move.

JeffrySG
01-13-2011, 12:10 PM
As far as the scanners, I'd rather not be bombarded by XRays for anything other than a doctor's visit or a trip to Mars. I guess I'll just have them grope my junk the next time I fly somewhere.


We'd be even safer if we were all imprisoned, too, with no possessions or clothes, and with guards and cameras watching our every move.

:agree::agree:

Titus
01-13-2011, 12:52 PM
People who touch your junk (http://chartporn.org/2010/12/27/people-who-touch-your-junk-venn/)

http://i.imgur.com/IT5FP.jpg

kopperdrake
01-13-2011, 02:59 PM
neverko was teasing you about your misapplication of the word 'rite', vs. the proper word 'right'.

...with just a smattering of Pratchett love to boot.

Cryonic
01-13-2011, 03:37 PM
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures when the searched party has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.

crashnburn
01-13-2011, 06:39 PM
No one is forced into going to an airport and boarding a plane. Fine, it may mean you never leave your country. But they aren't grabbing people off the streets to scan, not yet anyway lol.

For me personally, I'd rather have the scan and feel unsafe for a few seconds than be flying on a plane unsure if some looney with a bomb is one of my fellow passengers and future fellow victim.

I can think of far worse things in life than an airport scanner.

JohnMarchant
01-13-2011, 06:46 PM
Personally im not against them but they do not protect you much more than normal scanners. What's inside someone that scares me, its already happen in Saudi Arabia, nearly killed a high ranking official.

BigHache
01-13-2011, 07:22 PM
Increasing security at airports is like coming up with new copy protection schemes against software hackers. If the U.S. government would stop pissing off other countries we might have few people that hate us.

crashnburn
01-13-2011, 07:37 PM
A bit of Conspiracy Theory, are there really that many people that hate us? lol. But a lot isn't down to whats happening now, there's also a lot of problems caused by issues in the past, caused by other countries, not just the US. But the reality is we need to stop that one person, if there really is that one person.

JonW
01-13-2011, 08:26 PM
Airports will be introducing internal scans next year!


Do they scan all the workers each day they start work. Stuff could easily be planted by a third party!

It’s not uncommon for girls to get internal ultrasound scans for various issues & pregnancy. My other half had one years ago. From her description it would definitely have brought tears to the eyes of many.

BigHache
01-13-2011, 09:29 PM
LOL didn't mean it to sound like a conspiracy theory. But yes I was referring to things in the past. It's a pattern that seems to keep continuing.

meshpig
01-13-2011, 11:46 PM
I often travel abroad with a carton of eggs stuffed up my arse so I'd be really embarrassed by a full body scan. I mean if it was a bottle of whisky I'd understand but eggs??

Amurrell
01-13-2011, 11:54 PM
As far as the scanners, I'd rather not be bombarded by XRays for anything other than a doctor's visit or a trip to Mars. I guess I'll just have them grope my junk the next time I fly somewhere.

But you'll end up getting far more radiation during your flight than from the scanner. The low energy x-rays that they use don't penetrate that far, thus the back scatter technique and the dosage is in the micro gray range or centiRAD. Your skin isn't all that radiologically sensitive (debatable).

Of course terrorists that wish to use "thin" explosives that form to the contour of your body, or those who wish to utilize body cavities will still get by. Come up with a solution, and someone will circumvent it.

By the way, there has been no one caught by the TSA. They have all been caught by other authorities either by tracking the individual(s) or being tipped off, most of which have been in other countries besides the US. And I'll have to help pay for all of their retirements.

Otterman
01-14-2011, 05:47 AM
I went through one of those body scanners the other week sporting a semi...I'm a show off that way hehe

JohnMarchant
01-14-2011, 05:56 AM
I went through one of those body scanners the other week sporting a semi...I'm a show off that way hehe

Yeah agree that's what all men should do, cant do you for indecent exposure can they

glebe digital
01-14-2011, 06:49 AM
Radiation scientists agree TSA naked body scanners could cause breast cancer and sperm mutations:
http://current.com/news/92841167_radiation-scientists-agree-tsa-naked-body-scanners-could-cause-breast-cancer-and-sperm-mutations.htm

"The news about the potential health dangers of the TSA's naked body scanners just keeps getting worse. An increasing number of doctors and scientists are going public with their warnings about the health implications of subjecting yourself to naked body scanners. These include Dr Russell Blaylock as well as several professors from the University of California who are experts in X-ray imaging."

TSA Desktop Image:
http://fascistsoup.com/2010/11/12/tsa-desktop-background-image-of-child-body-cavity-search/

"I ain't gettin' on no plane!"
Mr T

warmiak
01-14-2011, 06:55 AM
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures when the searched party has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.


You are kidding right ?

Here is how it works in practice:

http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/r3001g7i8/blair-shooting-m4v/

A guy who was a meth user ( not a dealer) gets shot down like a dog, after being given only a few seconds of reaction time to respond to a bunch of thugs invading his house at night.
He was just standing there with a baseball bat in his own house, not an unreasonable reaction when you hear a commotion in front of your house at night - they didn't find any significant drugs on him ( just $4 in his pocket)

crashnburn
01-14-2011, 07:23 AM
Sounds like the use of excesive force to me. There are two sides to every story. But still, it would have to be extreme circumstances for that level of response to a guy with a baseball bat. I'd love to see what would happen to Joe public in the same situation.

warmiak
01-14-2011, 07:25 AM
Sounds like the use of excesive force to me. There are two sides to every story. But still, it would have to be extreme circumstances for that level of response to a guy with a baseball bat. I'd love to see what would happen to Joe public in the same situation.

These days any sort of violence is "deemed justified" when it comes to drugs.

Frankly, worrying about airport scanners and even al qaeda terrorists is silly when this sort of stuff is going on all over the country.

Amurrell
01-14-2011, 12:20 PM
Radiation scientists agree TSA naked body scanners could cause breast cancer and sperm mutations:
http://current.com/news/92841167_radiation-scientists-agree-tsa-naked-body-scanners-could-cause-breast-cancer-and-sperm-mutations.htm

"The news about the potential health dangers of the TSA's naked body scanners just keeps getting worse. An increasing number of doctors and scientists are going public with their warnings about the health implications of subjecting yourself to naked body scanners. These include Dr Russell Blaylock as well as several professors from the University of California who are experts in X-ray imaging."

TSA Desktop Image:
http://fascistsoup.com/2010/11/12/tsa-desktop-background-image-of-child-body-cavity-search/

"I ain't gettin' on no plane!"
Mr T

Well I have to know radiation science and safety for my profession, which is being an expert in utilizing ionizing radiation for medical imaging. Yes I am a technologist. Just recently (2009) the weighted sensitivity of tissue for the gonads has been reduced in half, meaning that your stuff is less sensitive than once thought. Of course I am not saying that there is "safe" radiation, but the risk is far less that getting a chest x-ray, where the tissue weighting factors of the lungs increased to what the gonads used to be, meaning more radio sensitive. However the risk of developing cancer from a chest x-ray is low. Women have a 34% chance of developing cancer in their lifetimes and men 42% chance. A chest x-ray increases the chance by 1/4000 of a percent. Statistically negligible over the lifetime of an individual.

Cardinal rules of time, distance and shielding come into play here, along with the penetrating ability of the ray. The further you are away from the ray the better. The shorter you are exposed to the beam the better, and of course the more shielding the better. The backscatter technique that they use is a very low energy beam which is absorbed in short tissue distances and through reactions scattered back to an image receptor rather than passing through the body (in this forum think SSS). The skin is the shield in this case, although not a good one. Scan time is very short and the total body dose is far lower than an exam that would be done on an extremity in the hospital by a factor of 100 to 1000 times.

Now flying is another matter. The closer you are to space, the more radiation you receive. If you live in the mountains, the more radiation you receive (and in the Rockies the uranium deposits help here too). All in all, the radiation you receive from the scan is much lower than the radiation you would receive on any given day and contributes a very small amount to the overall dose.

Funny thing is, is that there is more concern about the ionizing radiation the one gets at the airport but not the common type that people seek out to "look better". That's right, UV, which is the cause of more cancer than x-rays. Let someone stand in a scanner at the airport for a couple of seconds and another lay in a tanning bed for a half an hour a pop and tell me who gets melanoma first.

Sorry for the educational rant. Play on.

glebe digital
01-14-2011, 01:39 PM
Amurrell - Appreciate the expert opinion. :)

Glad I don't live in the local town [Stromness], the hill it's sitting on is filled with large Uranium deposits......

Rayek
01-14-2011, 02:16 PM
Ah well, in the end it's all more about money than anything else, with 'security reasons' being only one trick in an ever-expanding bag of fear-mongering tactics to grab some money and run. And, scarily enough, most people behind these tactics seem to truly believe their own lies.

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/152909.html

It has always been easier to sell a simple lie as a truth, and render a complex truth as a lie. Television made this much simpler by creating a disconnection between "reality" as viewed on the screen and the subtlety of the world we live in. I read somewhere that, historically, society on a whole has never been safer than in the last fifty years, with terrorism on its lowest level ever, and decreasing. Watch some television, and you start to believe the exact opposite.

I still find it hard to believe that the majority of the populous actually believes what is said in the media. Most do not read between the lines - Chomsky probably has it right.

meshpig
01-15-2011, 02:29 AM
Funny thing is, there's more concern about the ionizing radiation that one gets at the airport but not the common type that people seek out to "look better".


In any case irradiation isn't strictly the issue. Rather the determination of the "state" so to speak, is no better when it comes to "air"ports than it is or ever was with "sea" ports in terms of it's Sovereignty. A bit like the "fleet in being";

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

Chris S. (Fez)
01-15-2011, 04:21 AM
You are kidding right ?

Here is how it works in practice:

http://www.desivideonetwork.com/view/r3001g7i8/blair-shooting-m4v/



That video is horrifying.

safetyman
01-15-2011, 10:08 AM
If you're worried about the radiation exposure, just wear lead bloomers.

BigHache
01-15-2011, 07:20 PM
That video is horrifying.

Yeah. And of course the courts will rule in the police's favor. When does the government admit guilt, especially when a death is involved?

Jim_C
01-16-2011, 07:54 AM
As with all things, follow the money....

Who benefited (Massive ca-ching$$$) from the millions of dollars in sales of the new scanners?

Why surprise surprise, none other than the guy who was in charge of our "homeland Security" at the time and pushed (fear mongered) for the installation of them.

http://www.wcvarones.com/2010/11/tsas-nude-scanners-former-homeland.html

Chris S. (Fez)
01-17-2011, 02:55 AM
Cronyism or not, we are subject to scans and groin-groping because of plots by militant Muslims to take down planes with "underwear bombs" and "shoe bombs". I agree it is a ridiculous reaction and a colossal waste of money we do not have.

Jim_C
01-17-2011, 07:54 AM
There are many who believe these oh so dangerous underwear and shoe garment wearers are false flags puppeted by the very cronies who reap the benefits of the ridiculous new devices put in place to catch them.

borkus
01-17-2011, 06:03 PM
That wouldn't surprise me and I have read crazier things in history...

Jim_C
01-17-2011, 07:55 PM
It's much easier to sell 'security' to a society that lives in constant fear.

Chris S. (Fez)
01-17-2011, 11:11 PM
It certainly would not require a false flag operation to alert the public to the ongoing threat of militant muslims.

Jim_C
01-18-2011, 12:25 AM
Ahh those evil high tech cave dwelling Muslims. With their sophisticated lit by book of matches shoes and TNT stuffed under roos. Coincidentally trying to take us all out during the sacred Christmas season when the ALERT ALERT level is at it's highest and our media fed fear is at it's peak.
Have no worry.. we have a brand new Billion dollar machine that will stop all that.
What? It won't? Well shut up slave and bend over anyway, it's for your own 'safety'.You love the USA don't you?

Chris S. (Fez)
01-18-2011, 02:00 AM
What would a false flag operation accomplish that the extremists have not already? Glance at the news on any given day and you will see stories of supremists murdering or plotting to murder innocent people: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Militant muslims are clearly a credible threat. The US has a duty to protect its citizens but not, I think, at the expense of our privacy.

Elmar Moelzer
01-18-2011, 06:25 AM
Personally I think that this whole "security theater" does absolutely nothing for your savety. The only thing it does, is make the small man feel like the government is actually doing something to protect him. In reality this whole theater is just directing government pork to certain companies with big lobbies.

Ever since 9/11 people have become completely paranoid and irrational.
E.g. the whole security theater is not needed to prevent another 911. The fact that there was a 9/11 and people are aware of what happened then, is enough to prevent that by itself. As a reference see Flight 93 and what happend on board when people realized what the hijackers intended to do.
Until 911 the official policy for flight crews was to cooperate with the hijackers which would usualy redirect the planes to some airport and then release demands, etc.
So 911 took people by surprise and this is why it worked.

In order to simply destroy an airplane, you do not need to hijack it. You do not even have to be on board. See Lockerbie for reference.
A full body scan does nothing to prevent that.
If they wanted to crash another plane into another building, they would just have to charter a plane. Charter passengers can simply drive their cars to the private jet and bypass all the security. Again, the security theater does nothing to prevent that.

Even with a 911 every year and counting all the deaths, flying on a plane would still be much saver than driving a car, even than crossing a street (40,000 people die in traffic accidents in the US allone).

IMHO the next atacks will be on easier targets, basically any place that has larger groups of people present. Football stadiums, train stations, even large malls all have comparably little security and make an equally if not more attractive target. What do you want to do against that? Put full body scanners at the entrances to every Wallmart?
Not to mention that this would not work, since the US citizens love to bring their guns with them when they go shopping at Wallmart, HEB and co.

Because of all this, this security theater does not make me feel any saver, only much more annoyed.

borkus
01-18-2011, 12:24 PM
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that one of the tactics for a terrorist to employ is to simply disrupt our way of life. If they con accomplish that, they have won a series of small victories. By getting us to look to one another and start pointing fingers and get special interest groups to tap into our already dwindling economy, they weaken our society on a whole. Which is one of the things they fundamentally hate about us. They are resentful of our freedoms. They would like nothing less to see our empire fall so that they could swoop in and run us just like they run their own countries. I am speaking of only fanatical extremists and not any group in particular. We have faced terrorism for many centuries in countless varieties but the ideology has been very similar since it's inception. There are some that say the US is using a type of terrorism on it's own populace and hiding behind authoritarianism. I have my own thoughts on whether or not that is BS, but that discussion is well out of the scope of the OP and probably not geared for this discussion board.