The "Underwear Bomber"...and yet more security checks

[Amanita]

I saw that picture of the scanner image, and yes, you can see people's privates. Some people don't care if a screener sees their bits on an x ray image. Others do. There are a lot of us out there who would have a huge problem. Some people such as myself are painfully modest as a matter of nature. Others practice religious modesty, believing that nobody but their spouse should see them naked, and I imagine a practically nude x-ray image would violate that.
And of course there are a lot of us who believe that such a thing is a violation of privacy.

To some people, the idea of having somebody see an image of them naked would be mortifying beyond belief, if not religiously offensive.

[Rageaholic]

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see much of a problem with the body scanners. I mean, as long as they work to neutralize any threats, I don't see why this is a big deal.

If there is a better way that wouldn't be as intrusive, I think that should be considered (better for business for those uncomfortable with it), but until they come up with an alternate way to prevent terrorists sneaking HOME MADE bombs on to a plane, I think this is a necessary evil.

The only thing I don't get is keeping people from using the bathroom an hour before landing. For 1, it's going to be hard to enforce, and 2, keeping people from using the bathroom won't stop a terrorist from blowing up the plane outside the bathroom. It's an unnecessary restriction that doesn't really accomplish much. Focus on preventing terrorists from getting on the planes in the first place, and there's no need for such unnecessary restrictions.

[Fashion Lad!]

This post is clearly the product of America raising a REALLY prude society. Ooh, people's junk! So? We all are the same except for two areas. Oh no! They are going to see MY junk. My junk and hundreds of other's. I'm pretty sure it won't phase them after day one.

My doctor and my girlfriend are the only ones allowed to see my junk. And when I get paid for everyone else to see my junk, they can see it. (No, that's not an offer.)

I understand the need to keep people safe. But, this, to me, too far. Way too far.

[Slytovhand]

Others practice religious modesty, believing that nobody but their spouse should see them naked,...

Perfect! Now, you see, we won't have any of those religious nutjob types getting onto our planes and trying to blow all us normal folks up!

Good point, Amanita! Sort of like whether someone is allowed to wear a headscarf or other religious coverings on board a plane or not (or in a department store, or... well, anywhere).

It is totally impossible to stop someone from doing serious harm to others - especially when you are looking at the scales involved here - without actually killing or physically detaining them.

Much better is to look at why such people would do such things, and focus efforts there... oh, and be a lot more honest - and outspoken - about your own governments dealings....

[HYHYBT]

I'm all in favor of those scanners, IF AND ONLY IF:

*EVERYBODY has to go through them, no exceptions, including all staff permitted past the check point.

*Only security personnel can see the images. Looking at thousands upon thousands of blurry people day after day means they won't find you interesting unless there's something under there that shouldn't be.

*It means less restriction once you're past security: not just this new business of not even being allowed to go to the bathroom or read a book the last hour of flight, but if I understand rightly they stopped allowing iPods and such to be used at the same time the liquid restriction went into effect. If they've seen precisely what's in my bags, and pockets, and clear down to my skin, then that should be good enough to know none of it is harmful.

*(this space reserved for anything else I think of)

[Nyoibo]

Slightly off topic but how many people are thinking about the body scanners, oh my god Xray specs that work!!!

Nope, not the only one.

[Dreamstalker]

Only security personnel can see the images.

Unless something changed, I believe that to be the case. The images are not stored, at least not that I'm aware of.

if I understand rightly they stopped allowing iPods and such to be used at the same time the liquid restriction went into effect.

Now that's just dumb...everything I've read on the subject says that the original "liquid explosive" plot could never work the way people claim it was supposed to, so the original hysteria is a bit ridiculous as well.

[Vagabond]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

On a slightly different note - I'm honestly considering going through U.S. airport security in a toga, airline tickets and identification. Make things a bit easier and laugh at TSA at the same time.

[Greenday]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

I love when people quote other people from hundreds of years ago and act like what they said at the time applies to now. You have absolutely no idea what they would have said about today's situation and their quote had nothing to do with what is going on today.

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...orn-fears.html

Can we say "child suicide bombers"? These people are ruthless and willing to die for their beliefs; who says that they won't be recruiting under 18s to bypass these scanners?

[Greenday]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...orn-fears.html

Can we say "child suicide bombers"? These people are ruthless and willing to die for their beliefs; who says that they won't be recruiting under 18s to bypass these scanners?

I also fail to see how this is child porn as it's not pornography.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Did you read the article? Any image of a naked child counts as pornography as per the child porn laws. Therefore, children are to be let thru without being scanned. Therefore, what's to stop these terrorists from recruiting children to carry their bombs into airports? I believe someone said earlier in the thread that the terrorists would find a loophole; well, here's one, and it's one that puts children at risk.

Also, there's religious reasons; that'll be the next group excluded. In short, it's not going to protect you from terrorists; and nope, we still don't have this kind of thing on the tube.

[Greenday]

I still don't see it as pornography as there is nothing going on and the images are so vague you can't see squat anyway. But I agree you are right. There are loopholes and it seems like we are making them much, much bigger for terrorists.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I don't see it as porn either; however, the law does and that means that under 18s are excluded from the scanners.

[Greenday]

I don't see it as porn either; however, the law does and that means that under 18s are excluded from the scanners.

Cause the terrorists wouldn't hesitate to use an 18 year old suicide bomber but not a 17 year old.