Body Scanners and why they're just terrible

[Dark_Lite]

Don't like it, don't fly.

What happens if you're required to fly for business?
What happens if you're going to a courthouse (where these are being deployed)?
What happens if you're on the road and one of those scanning vans drive past you?

"Don't like it, don't do it" does not work in the case of these body scanners.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

What happens if you're required to fly for business?

Get another job.

What happens if you're going to a courthouse (where these are being deployed)?

You should feel safer.

What happens if you're on the road and one of those scanning vans drive past you?

Stay home or move to Somalia where there is absolutely no government intrusion in personal affairs.

"Don't like it, don't do it" does not work in the case of these body scanners.

It does.

 

[AMarx]

Don't like it, don't fly.

So, when they set these up at the train station: Don't like it, don't ride the train.

On the subway: Don't like it, don't take the subway.

As random checkpoints on streets: Don't like it, don't drive.

As random checkpoints on sidewalks in cities: Don't like it, don't walk.

When does it end?

 

[shinbits]

Wow. I am the one usually taking stands and saying we need to stand up against the government but i just don't see how this infringes on any rights. We do not have the "Right" to fly thus the airport has the right to secure their customers and planes and property any way they see fit. End of story.

You know, I can't really see any way to argue with this.

Besides, the outrage only stems from the cultural belief that nudity is wrong. Otherwise, there's no reason to object to those scanners that let security see through people's clothes.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

So, when they set these up at the train station: Don't like it, don't ride the train.

On the subway: Don't like it, don't take the subway.

As random checkpoints on streets: Don't like it, don't drive.

As random checkpoints on sidewalks in cities: Don't like it, don't walk.

When does it end?

When one finally realizes that their insecurity does not grant them permission to put others in danger.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Besides, the outrage only stems from the cultural belief that nudity is wrong.

No, it doesn't. Not even close. It's about privacy, not the view that nudity is "wrong".

Stay home or move to Somalia where there is absolutely no government intrusion in personal affairs.

Move to a dictatorship where there is absolutely no right to privacy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, when they set these up at the train station: Don't like it, don't ride the train.

On the subway: Don't like it, don't take the subway.

As random checkpoints on streets: Don't like it, don't drive.

As random checkpoints on sidewalks in cities: Don't like it, don't walk.

When does it end?

When your thoughtcrime has been eliminated, and you love Big Brother.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AMarx]

When one finally realizes that their insecurity does not grant them permission to put others in danger.

So, the government should be able to do whatever the government deems necessary to ensure security?

You know, this is going to sound horrible but...

In terrorist attacks on this country, less than 10 thousand people have died. That is less than the number of people that die of the flu or phenomena in a given year. Do we really have to go though this much of a song and dance over something that has the killed less people than the flu? Might be a bit of an overreaction maybe?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Get another job.

You should feel safer.

Stay home or move to Somalia where there is absolutely no government intrusion in personal affairs.


It does.

At least you're consistent. Let's take the hyperbole to the next level. What happens if they start deploying them inside houses (say, townhouses since they're close together). After all, we wouldn't want a bomber blowing up a neighorhood! What is your response to that? "Don't like it, get another house?"

The whole "don't like it, don't do it" idea hinges on the notion that all these places or modes of transportation are optional and voluntary. That falters when it's in a required place like a courthouse.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

So, the government should be able to do whatever the government deems necessary to ensure security?

No, there must be accountability. Pat-downs are not justification for repression, genocide and extermination, where I know this was going.

You know, this is going to sound horrible but...

In terrorist attacks on this country, less than 10 thousand people have died. That is less than the number of people that die of the flu or phenomena in a given year. Do we really have to go though this much of a song and dance over something that has the killed less people than the flu? Might be a bit of an overreaction maybe?

I'm sure more people each year are killed in automobile accidents than are murdered. It would be absurd if I used that as an argument against having a police force and judicial system that prosecutes such crimes.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

At least you're consistent. Let's take the hyperbole to the next level. What happens if they start deploying them inside houses (say, townhouses since they're close together). After all, we wouldn't want a bomber blowing up a neighorhood! What is your response to that?

Leave North Korea. I don't know why you'd live there anyway.

The whole "don't like it, don't do it" idea hinges on the notion that all these places or modes of transportation are optional and voluntary. That falters when it's in a required place like a courthouse.

I'm not unsympathetic to people who are wary of being patted down or going through body scanners, but have responsibilities to dates and times and "must" use aircraft. However, if making 100,000 people uncomfortable at an airport is the cost of saving even one life, I'm willing to support it. As I explained in the other post, there is a point to which intrusion reaches levels of absurdity, but airport security is far from the line in which one crosses from healthy caution to paranoia.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

Move to a dictatorship where there is absolutely no right to privacy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes, the slippery slope, totalitarian 1984-esque 3rd Reich, no freedom and concentration camp dichotomy; there is no in between. Once you have airport security, that's it man; tomorrow we might see a swastika or an army of communist insurgents setting up a one party system.

That doesn't sound like ridiculous hyperbole at all.

 

[Mystman]

I'm sure more people each year are killed in automobile accidents than are murdered. It would be absurd if I used that as an argument against having a police force and judicial system that prosecutes such crimes.

No, but it is a pretty good argument for speed limit enforcement, while many notorious speeders are often complaining that the police should go "catch some real criminals".

The amount of effort invested in a particular type of security should be proportional to the expected increase in security (relatively straight-forward; just divide the budget by the expected reduction in deaths), and balanced against the loss of freedom of the citizens (harder, since you can't really put a number on "freedom").

Striking that balance in such a way that the majority of your population is happy with it (and without alienating the remainder of your population) is hard, if not impossible to get exactly right. But many of the "arguments" I've heard are basically "as long as whatever security measures you're proposing feels right, you can just completely ignore my fellow citizen's freedoms. I'll let you know once you cross my personal non-defined line (and then you'll ofcourse be nazi communist muslim babykillers)"

 

[MountainCappuccino]

No, but it is a pretty good argument for speed limit enforcement, while many notorious speeders are often complaining that the police should go "catch some real criminals".

The amount of effort invested in a particular type of security should be proportional to the expected increase in security (relatively straight-forward; just divide the budget by the expected reduction in deaths), and balanced against the loss of freedom of the citizens (harder, since you can't really put a number on "freedom").

The reason terrorism is given so much of a "portion" of budget doesn't boil down to purely the loss of human life. Terrorist operations are acts of war against the United States; the only difference is that they do not wear uniforms, so such measures as bomb detection equipment and more security personnel are required.

 

[Mystman]

Somewhat related, but I'm browsing wikipedia for airline terrorism related pages (depressing stuff right before bedtime :/), and eh..

What is it with blowing up airliners and life insurance?

National Airlines Flight 967 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Continental Airlines Flight 11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United Airlines Flight 629 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Airlines Flight 2511 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Albert Guay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AMarx]

I'm sure more people each year are killed in automobile accidents than are murdered. It would be absurd if I used that as an argument against having a police force and judicial system that prosecutes such crimes.

It would be absurd if the police force randomly searched persons to ensure they are not murders. That is a more apt comparison, not simply the existence of the police force.

 

[MountainCappuccino]

It would be absurd if the police force randomly searched persons to ensure they are not murders. That is a more apt comparison, not simply the existence of the police force.

They already do, for more reasons than that. Airport security just isn't designed against terrorism, but drug and human trafficking as well.

 

[AMarx]

They already do, for more reasons than that. Airport security just isn't designed against terrorism, but drug and human trafficking as well.

The police are not allowed to randomly search people. It would violate the 4th amendment and anything they find would be inadmissible in court. There would need to be probable cause to conduct such a search.

Are you being contrary simply to be contrary?

 

[MountainCappuccino]

The police are not allowed to randomly search people. It would violate the 4th amendment and anything they find would be inadmissible in court. There would need to be probable cause to conduct such a search.

Why are you assuming they'd acknowledge the search as "random"?

Are you being contrary simply to be contrary?

Maybe. I like 10 people picking apart my posts.

 

[AMarx]

Why are you assuming they'd acknowledge the search as "random"?

A good defense attorney would be able to prove that the search was not based on probable cause. I'm not saying abuses never happen, but the rights need to be protected. My opinion still is that you cannot justify a loss of rights for the sake of the illusion of safety.