Airport Screeners could see X-rated X-rays 1407
AdamBomb writes "Think airport security is bad enough already? Well, the Department of Homeland Security is now planning on rolling out new machines that will allow screeners to actually see through clothing. Could be bad news, though privacy advocates are obviously fighting it."
Who wants to see everything? (Score:5, Funny)
It's time to get a job as an airport screener! [opm.gov]
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally don't care if it goes as far as to show nipples. It's already bad enough if it allows you to see through clothes that people specifically put on to cover body parts they're not willing to show in public.
By that definition, I don't even want them to see through my watch. If they really want to have a look, let them come and ask me to take it off. They already do that with shoes, belts, jackets, hats and whatnot, what's the problem with that?
I'm a frequent flyer and I'm already pissed with the current security measures. They should make those more efficient before thinking on implementing new equipment under the same, flawed policies.
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I don't have a problem showing any of my private parts to doctors because:
1) I know who they are,
2)I know they are qualified
3)I can go to a different doctor if I choose to.
4)I trust that they are doing something to help me. And there is a big difference between that and the security guards at the airport, who probably hardly managed to finish highschool and are just overweight cops stuffed
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
You say 'However, turning down a scan you would probably get a strip search'
Did you ask what your options were, or did you meekly walk into the mmw radar unit ?
As for the gender issue, how do you know the person looking at you naked is not gay? How do you know they are NOT getting a sexual kick from this ? How does that possibility make you feel?
Before you stepped into this thing, did you find out what the long term and medium term effects of millimeter wave radar are ? Are you aware of any public studies that verify the safety of these scans on humans ?
Or did you meekly go the way the shepherd told you to ?
Furrfu!
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't really think that do you? Seriously, there's traffic between the cockpit and the cabin all the time - so there has to be a communications link
How many people that you really want flying an airplane would be able to handle the execution of dozens or (on large planes) hudreds of people? How many eight year old girls would it have to have their throats cut before you or anyone else opened the door?
Sure, it might be the best thing for the country to prevent the hijacking of a plane like that - but the country and any victims in question are far away and poorly defined in our minds. The little girl with a razor blade to her throat standing in a pool of her fathers blood is right outside the door.
I'm not sure I'd want to be able to condem her to death to save the aircraft. I'm not sure I'd want someone with that level of detachment flying my plane.
This is hard stuff - and no simple solution is going to solve it.
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:3, Informative)
You don't really think that do you? Seriously, there's traffic between the cockpit and the cabin all the time - so there has to be a communications link
Call the El Al [elal.co.il], Israel's national airline and ask them how it's been working out. All their planes have locked and bulletproof doors to the cockpit and plain clothes law enforcement on each flight. There have been many hijacking attemp
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, both these precautions are routine in El-Al flights. There was one El-Al hijacked plane. In 1968. Never since. And it has been tried [thisistravel.co.uk], and foiled by these exact measures.
That said...
First, it costs.
Having a few highly trained armed guards in each and every flight... this isn't cheap. Now imagine you are a commercial American airline. Who would pay for that? Locking the door to the cockpit only works as long as people on both side of the door are willing to die - or see others die - to keep it closed. Now, imagine that was a prequisite to being hired as air crew in a commercial Americal airline. Would you find enough employees? How much extra would you need to pay to those you do find?
Second, security meausures in El-Al flights are even tighter than the new security routines in American flights since 9/11. The main difference is that El-Al security is free to focus on effectiveness as opposed to political correctness. This means that profiling is used heavily to achieve the same level of security with the minimal hassle.
I believe that for legal reasons, American security is barred from only giving the 3rd degree treatment to an angry-looking 25 year old Arab-descent man who has spent several years in Afganistan with no family in the USA, while ignoring a 70-year old grandmother flying with her grandchildren back to their parents from Disney world. The current solution is to give everyone the 3rd degree - so you see the man, the grandmother and her grandsons taking off their shoes together so some poor soul can sniff them for explosives.
In an Israeli airport, the grandmother would sail through security, while the man's luggage would go under a microscope while he is being thoroughly questioned to see if he really is what he claims to be. And before someone draws the racist card - when I flew from Athents to Israel in the late 70s, everyone went through the same 3rd degree, without any exceptions. And today, if you are a 25-year old WASP idealistic female who has spent the last 6 months volunteering in the occupied territories and is carrying some presents from her new found boyfriend there to his family back in Europe, she'd get the same 3rd degree. And it just might save her life, even if she's newly pregnant by him (what, you thought someone willing to blow up a plane full of innocent people would care? Guess again - this did happen [bearpit.net]).
At any rate, anyone who complains about how harsh the new security checks is should read the enraged accounts of people who raised too many "suspect" flags in an Israeli airport. The reason the country puts up with it is because it works, and the public is indifferent to the hardship suffered by a negligible fraction of mostly foreign passengers. You have to admire the fact the American people put up with this "equal mistreatment". Good for you, really. I just wonder how long you can keep it up. It is a horribly inefficient way of going about it.
I think it is great that once the Americans have been put in this awkward position, they are throwing technology (that is, money) at the problem. For example, see explosive sniffers are now standard, which saves a lot of "open your luggage, please". Having machines that see through clothes would be a great way to give everyone equal treatment while minimizing the hassle. As for privacy issues - even assuming the pictures are playboy-perfect (which they aren't), what exactly is the problem? Believe it or not, but we are all rather alike.
I predict you wouldn't even see whoever is looking at the pictures (for an additional $0.02, it would be a "she" for women and a "he" for men - there, feel better?). They'd be off at some booth to the side, so all you will experience is "stand here for a second, please... bzzzz... thank you, move along, nothing to see here".
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I can stop every rapist too.
Ok, sure, I get to violate the rights of a lot of other people, and lock up lots of innocent people, but I can stop every rapist.
IMHO, Israel does the same thing, perhaps to a less extreme degree than my example.
Problem is, we have a society that predicates itself on treating people equally. We don't (or at least our ideals/constitution say we shouldn't) single out particular individuals for "special" treatment, good or bad - unless we have reliable information that this specific individual poses a significant risk.
Likewise, we'd rather let a few murderers go if getting every one of them requires locking up (or executing) innocent people too.
Look how many false "confessions" there are. You think airport screening is any different?
Issue is, that super invasive security measures at an airport will simply force those people to attack at another weak spot. You guys have done real well against the suicide bombers too huh? (Oh, I forgot, you are moving on and violating a whole lot of more people by putting up your "security" fence now...)
So, with enough loss of rights, privacy and drag-netting a lot of innocent people I can stop all crime too. However, I'd really rather not exist in such a society. It's only a matter of time till you yourself become one of the "suspects" and life really sucks then.
No thanks.
This is the real reason we have a government/republic that's designed with inefficiencies that are supposed to guarantee equal treatment of all individuals. (And yes, I know full well it's not actually that well done in practice - and it anguishes me on a regular basis...)
Cheers,
Greg
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:4, Insightful)
In an Israeli airport, the grandmother would sail through security,
Sounds like a loophole to me.
Consider the grandmother who has had all of her children killed by the Israeli army and their home bulldozed. She is too old to work, her life and the lives of her grandchildren depended on the support of her now deceased kids. Without them, her grandchildren will probably end up on the Palestinian street and dead before they reach 20, she'll be dead in two years because she can no longer afford the treatment for her diabetes.
They've got motive and with the help of Hamas they've got the means and enough false id to pass as jewish. They can sail right through those profile-based security checks carrying enough sarin in mickey-mouse thermoses to kill everyone on that plane in minutes.
Profiling works by focusing your attention on people with certain characteristics and by necessity relaxes your attention on the people who don't fit the profile. As soon as your enemy figures out how to avoid your profile, his job gets 10x easier.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think any healthy person has anything to hide. But...
For all those who've had major surgery, wear adult diapers, colostomy bags, have stomas, preoperative transexuals, hemaphrodites and other private matters of which they may not want their travelling companions or the minumum wage "security" guard at the airport to know about, I can see some good reason to be concerned about their privacy.
Doctors take oaths and take patient privacy seriously. Airport security?
And there's nothing to stop a suicidal nutcase from packing their chest cavity with explosives. Should this be a full x-ray?
If this goes anywhere, I bet the company selling this junk has some relationship with a politician.
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who wants to see everything? (Score:5, Funny)
Very true, and islamic extremists would have enormous difficulty infiltrating a culture which encouraged people to be naked in public. Perhaps somebody should start a political party based on a "Security through nudity" campaign.
If you're worried about a backlash from the godly, just remind them we are all naked in god's eyes anyway.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Informative)
Glocks are not undetectable ceramic weapons. Glocks are relatively normal guns with lots of parts in them that will set off metal detectors.
Keep repeating this until you have learned it.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:4, Informative)
Handguns are heavy. To make it easier to carry one around all day, Glock designed a line with some parts made of plastic rather than metal to make them a little lighter. It worked so well that now many handguns from other manufacturers have plastic frames.
There's still plenty of metal in them [seark.net] and they will set off detectors.
The "undetectable plastic gun" thing was FUD, pure and simple.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, that's not true - there are lots of undetectable plastic guns. They just shoot plastic bullets, is all.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Informative)
Dunno how you'd detect one of those without X-ray imaging or physical contact.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great. Meanwhile, the rest of us are trying to enjoy what rights we have left, ok?
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I've already been subjected to the security gropefest a couple times. I'd take the X-ray *any* day over that. In my mind, this is a restoration of some of my rights ... I don't have to worry about being fondled.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure most people would. It's not like they're going to X-Ray only the people who would have been strip searched though, they're doing it to everyone. Maybe if they only did this to people who failed at the metal detector and/or did something else to spook security then they would be subj
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know...I'm worried abit about all this X-Ray exposure...it isn't like this is a really SAFE technology. For someone that travels a lot, this could potentially be dangerous. I worked in radiology for awhile, and it is serious business. Are the going to outfit the TSA agents with full lead aprons? I prefer to only be irradiated when absolutely necessary for medical reasons....
Wonder when the first airport security cancer lawsuits will take place?
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't allow ourselves to be randomly strip searched at the mall, in bars or before entering our cars, yet we're far more likely to be murdered in those places than on (or by) a plane. Why do we look at run-of-the-mill murder as something that we can't afford to give up our rights to prevent, but terrorism as something that is so fearful that almost anything is fair game.
I don't think I'm in a position to not travel on a plane, but I can still protest if they impliment this. I will find a non-metalic substance that's high contrast to one of these machines and I'll spell out the words "go fuck yourselves you nazi whores" on my chest or back, but under my shirt. The only people who will see it will be the screeners. I will continue to be completely cheerfull and cooperative in every other way. After they get finished looking at my cock and my ass cheeks with their machines, I dare those mother-fuckers to accuse me of being crude or mean to them.
TW
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated...Cancer (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a market (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly... This is fundamentally *bad* technology. If it can easily be manipulated, it is even worse technology.....
Honestly, we are setting ourselves up to be more vulnerable rather than less. A tightly organized terrorist group could cause *more* damage to the US using very little force than they could prior to Sept 11th. Consider the following scenario:
1) Terrorists engage in a large number of fake plots. Maybe leaving luggage stuffed with weights and paper in airport restrooms, giving annonymous tips about ships importing produce being contaminated with chemical and/or biological agents, etc. As a result air traffic is largely shut down in this country, as are produce imports.
2) Once people discover that these are all hoaxes, a real attack is set off somewhere. Security is either distracted or not taking it seriously. So the damage is greater. THis could be kept up for a while. Bear in mind that the goal of terrorism is to scare us into being manipulated. We are well on the way to giving them that.
What we need to do is focus on how to minimize the impact of attacks and then work carefully to find political ways to cut terrorists off from their support base. Prevention is less important than containment.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Insightful)
U.S. Constititution 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
One example, plucked right out of the air (pun intended), is the right to travel freely. You don't have to present documents or internal passports to move within the US.
So, not do you only have the right to fly, technically, it is a violation of your rights to make you present identification.
But it gets better. You have the right to enter into contracts as you see fit, as an adult, but not into contracts that violate any of your rights... you can't sell yourself into slavery. One example of a contract you can enter into is paying $500 to fly to some city on the other side of the country. An example of a contract that is invalid, giving up your right to very intimate privacy such as revealing your nipples and buttcrack to a airport screener in return for being allowed to board.
you don't have to fly if it's that big of a deal for you.
Maybe he does have to fly. I can think of any number of contrived scenarios where there is no other option, really. Some quite plausible. A parent is dying on the other coast, and you only have a few hours left. Rocketcar Taxi Services is out of business for breaking speed laws...
But it does not matter. It could be the shallowest reason, or no reason at all. The entire point of having rights, is that you don't need to ask for permission to exercise them, or justify their use. And even if we're going to get into tired arguments about abuse of rights, if such a thing is possible, not wanting to be digitally undressed by a TSA mouthbreather just to go on a trip is not one of them.
Re:U.S. Constititution 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, nail clippers "banned"? Because you might threaten to clip somebody's nails on the plain? (They're not sharp enough for anything else).
Four matches is OK, but FIVE!! OH NO, that's a potential terror risk!!
And as a bonus, I saw on the news that they're now arbitrarily fining people when they find something on their "do not bring list" with a minimum $250 fine (because the law allows them to). The amount of the fine is based on what you had confiscated and "your attitude toward the screeners". Then your name is put in a secret database and you may be subjected to more security searches indefinitely (in other words, persecuted). And no, you are not allowed to know if you are in the database or what information is stored about you in that database.
TSA is doing exactly what many of us have feared, they're flexing their muscle in the name of "better security" and stealing away our rights in the process. The x-rated x-ray machine is yet another example of this.
Of course, the only reason we're "safer" right now is because the terrorists haven't decided to strike. So what will happen when they do? Just start writing down your rights so you can remember what you used to have!!
Welcome to Germany, 1943! Enjoy your flight!
Re:U.S. Constititution 101 (Score:3, Informative)
When I flew about a year ago, they confiscated a refillable lighter, but let me on the plane with a non-refillable (yup, I smoke....)
Now, we got on the Cruise ship and I had to pay 3.50$ for a novelty lighter (seemed to be the only ones they had for sale) of which I had to throw away before I got to the security check in Orlando.
Ap
Re:U.S. Constititution 101 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:U.S. Constititution 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, we have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean I can walk up to a gun manufacturer and demand they give me a gun. If you want to use their service, you have to be prepared to pay for it, and suffer through any restrictsion they see fit to demand. Otherwise, WALK.
Re:U.S. Constititution 101 (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeh. You have to pay for it. What you don't have to do, is allow some TSA asshat to undress you.
They are businesses, and they have the right to restrict access to their property any way they want to.
That's funny, I never heard that Delta and United are the ones doing all this. Isn't it some federal agency?
Re:U.S. Constititution 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
No: Airlines are limited in how they may restrict access. The basic idea is this - you have the right to travel freely within the US (this is basic constitutional law - that which is not specifically illegal is legal, Bill of Rights, etc). You also have the right to enter into contracts with private parties - i.e. with Airlines to transport you within the US. Airlines are also bound by 'common carrier' legislation, but that's not directly applicable here.
However, you are *not* allowed to enter into an illegal contract - you can't sell yourself into slavery, for example. So if your contract with the airline is illegal/unconstitutional (for example, violation of privacy rights, discriminatory, etc) then it's not a valid contract. So the Airline can't say "You can't fly with us if you don't consent to stripping naked for our screeners", as that would be an illegal contract. At the moment they're getting round some of this by having the TSA do the screening, so it's not the Airlines that are making these demands, but the Government. That actually makes things worse, in my opinion.
That's the theory. It's not been tested in the courts yet, although Gilmore's giving part of it a good try.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:4, Insightful)
What then would be unacceptable?
It is thinking like this that would amount to a slippery slope when it comes to fighting the great (and greater) govt.
So today it is more intrusive searches on 100% of all passengers for the sake of reducing body cavity searches for that unfortunate few, does that mean that tomorrow it'll be ok to have cameras in every single home just because "some home is harbouring terrorists"?
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Informative)
How many would be terrorists have we caught using these measures?
True story:
We're (Husband,wife, 2 year old son, parents) headed to a state to visit grandparents. We get delayed in a layover state and the airline issues us aall a one way ticket on another flight.
My 2 year old son gets flagged as a suspect becaue of the one way ticket. Not I or my father in-law, my 2 year old son!
The screeners come up to us and take us to another area. We're not alowed to touch him at this point or we'll be handed to security for resisting. All we can do is follow.
The screeners themselves said that this was ridiculous and were apologetic for the procedure they were required to follow.
It was pretty terrible to watch him freak out in the hands of another adult but then he said "doctor?" and we said "Yes, they're doctors" to agree with him so he's at least civil.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of these have to happen, how often, before Mullah Jihadster can slip right through because they are wasting time checking toddlers for C4?
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Informative)
What did I do to get this kind of language??? From ACLU's own website [aclu.org]: The American Civil Liberties Union today told a House subcommittee that airline passenger profiling would be a dangerously ineffective, invasive and potentially discriminatory practice
The grandparent post was about a 2 year old getting searched in the name of being fair to everyone and I pointed out that it would be discriminatory and the ACLU would be all over them if they picked only on suspicious characters. Are you seriously telling me that the ACLU would be in favor of not screening small children but only suspicious characters??? How do you reconcile your claim with their own news release say that profiling better not be used because it might discriminate??? It's all very fine if you want to support searching small children in the name of being fair, but don't blast me if I agree with the grandparent that it's silly to do so.
If you drive on the highway... whats an airplane (Score:5, Insightful)
What keeps people from filling the metal tubes of their cary on luggage (shoes anyone ?) with explosive, pointy weapons. Lets outlaw any metal framed carry on luggage!!!
There are lots of ways around this and so the advantage is minimal, and the disadvantage is screeners seeing your wife/girlfriend/daughter naked...
No thanks. I take my chances driving on the highway, which is more dangerous than a plane trip, I think we are more than safe enough. Thanks but no thanks.
Releaving themselves of it (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF... why is holding a stinky bomb in your hand better than having it stuck up your ass? (I mean, not that I want it up my ass)
Unless it is a hijack not a suicide bombing...
bah, planes suck.
Re:If you drive on the highway... whats an airplan (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it just means it'll catch weapons that look like weapons. Considering all the metal and hard plastic junk people carry on board -- phones, laptops, not to mention attache cases and framed bags, it'd be an evening's work to make a weapon that breaks down into innocuous parts. See or read the original Day of the Jackal for instance.
And as TFA states, all you need is a fat person to hide stuff i
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Funny)
Because you could NEVER stick a ceramic knife between your butt cheeks, right?
This is NOT going to stop someone who is dedicated to wiping out a couple hundred people.
This is purely for that cute blonde in that line over there...
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Informative)
That is a fucked up example. He shot someone in the back that was running away from his house, then let him bleed to death on his lawn before he was reported missing the next day.
There was no reason for him to fire and in most US states he would be facing charges for his actions.
Not that you are deliberately misleading people or anything. He shot someone in cold blood and let them die in one of the most horrible way imaginable. Hardly "innocent".
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Informative)
tony martin [hmcourts-service.gov.uk] is hardly an innocent man he was convicted of manslaughter by a jury, the only reason the charge was reduced from murder was Dr Joseph found Martin to be a paranoid nutcase and not able to make rational decisions.
the man shot an unarmed teenage boy in the back, with a gun he was not legal entitled to (his shotgun license had been removed when he started shooting at people scrumping apples.)
in short tony martin is exactly the sort of person i want locked up, one un-able to distinguish between revenge and justice.
the only other case i can think of where the "victim" of crime was jailed for "defending" himself involved a factory owner who set a man trap in his factory for burglars (notice BTW burglars are UNARMED unlike robbers), he then proceeded to brutally torture captured burglar.
Now if you are sitting there and thinking good, it should be his job to meet out punishment to criminals, then you also are confusing revenege and justice and should go back and join the mob weilding pitchforks to which you obviously belong,as you are clearly not a civilised human being.
*BZZZT* WRONG (Score:4, Informative)
Lets talk British crime rates. Yeah, baby!
Violent crime has fallen by over a third since 1995. So, since they tightened gun laws violent crime in the UK has *fallen*. (Not risen, fallen.)
Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.
Now, I know there are people who don't like the British Crime Survey. But their methodology is simple. Every year they ask 30,000 people "have you or a close friend/relation been the victim of a crime, if so what was it and how many times did it happen?" Essentially, the survey strips out the absurdities of police crime reporting changes. (See http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/20
Now, I'm not claiming that guns cause crime. But the evidence is certainly more mixed people (on either side of the debate) believe. And the main argument, I believe, against letting the populace bear arms is the risk of accidents. (See http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/states_deaths.as
Anyway, just my thoughts,
Cheers,
Robert
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Interesting)
No it isn't. There are two problems, but this is not one of them:
First, it's a problem (from the airliners point of view) that people where afraid of flying after 11/9. To combat this, you need to do something that is visible, and that gives the appearance that something is being done. Notice that if the measures actually improve security or not is uninmportant, what matters for this problem is only that people feel safer, not that they are safer.
Most of the stuff we've seen after 11/9 fall in this category, fueled by forces that'd like to see more surveillance and broader police-powers generally, and latch onto this as a suitable excuse.
Then there's the problem of ensuring that flying is safe. Generally it already is pretty safe, but it's always a good thing to improve safety if it can be done at an acceptable cost. (not cost only in sense of money, but in sense of money, inconvenience, etc)
Dealing with "armed criminals on an airplane" is a tiny part of that problem. You may be rigth that having 20 other armed people on the (extremely rare) plane that gets problems with an "armed criminal" may help in that spesific case. But very likely it would hurt more than it helps. Because you get a new class of problems: People who wouldn't otherwise be armed, but which now are because it's allowed.
It happens *often* that some passenger drinks too much / had the wife leave him the day before / starts to argue because his seat isn't the one he'd wished for / looses his temper for some other reason. It's not particularily uncommon that such passengers must be restrained.
If a large part of the passengers are armed, what is today a bit of loud yelling followed by a pair of handcuffs for the rest of the fligth may easily turn into a gunfight. I consider it likely this would happen dozens of times before you experience the first case where all the guns in the plane actually *benefit* security.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:5, Informative)
Come on, these things fly with engines missing. One window isn't a major problem. The size is determined as one which can be shot out and the plane can still fly.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:4, Informative)
If for some reason the crew cannot put on masks rapidly then their capacity to react can become impaired due to hypoxia, even if the depressurisation is not rapid. This [geocities.com]
might be a useful reference.
Re:Hardly X-Rated. Maybe R-Rated... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are really overlooking the obvious here. Contemporary terrorists are already prepared to kill even themselves while killing others to "make their statements." A vigilante is acting in defense... even if it might be offensive. The odds passengers bei
Re:Yes, it is called PARANOIA (Score:3, Insightful)
You're making swee
Re:Yes, it is called PARANOIA (Score:4, Interesting)
I live where illegal smuggling causes car accident deaths of innocents every week. Where they live in migrant tent tracts and rape and force women and children to prostitute [iwu.edu]. And this is why, I carry a gun. I'm a gorgeous redhead with a great body.... I can so get kidnapped and disposed of very quickly. Do me a favor... Google crime in San Diego County. Read any of the local news rags... SignonSanDiego.com is pretty good. Most of the violent crime is committed by crankheads or Mexican Illegals whacked out on meth - the major cheap street drug in TJ).
All of that being said.... I go to Mexico about once a month. I drive my American Car with California plates, and I hang out with my American friends. I *love* my time in Mexico. I go down along Baja, and I have a great time... that was until the Police Chief of Rosarito (where we go) was murdered in cold blood in front of his house... over 100 bullet holes were found in him. I'm sorry, sir, but that's just not safe. I have a great time in Mexico, but does it mean that I am not afraid for my life? NO!!!! That's why I have 2 huge guys on either side of me constantly. Oh, and they are CONSTANTLY screwing over Americans in terms of money. Do yourself a favor, change your money in San Ysidro before you go over!!!! They will buttrape you for $$s to pesos.
I did get pulled over by Federales when I was driving home one midnight. I was scared to death, because they really love to throw Americans in Mexican jails for doing nothing wrong. But the officer was very sweet, and I tried my best to speak what very little spanish I know, and he had me follow him to the highway. He asked me - Do you have any drugs... any guns? Of course not!!!! Like I would say yes if I did.
So ya know, there are whole parts of this country for thousands of square miles that are really safe, and perfectly fine to walk around nude in the middle of the street and not have anyone attack you... you might get a laugh or even a ticket, but you won't get abducted, raped and killed. And it's those places, where the 2nd amendment is respected, embraced, and everyone knows old boy might be packing. That's my freedom, my right, and damnit, I WILL PROTECT MYSELF!
Before you read the article (Score:5, Funny)
Two Questions (Score:5, Funny)
2. How do I get put in charge of the 'Hot Chick' section
and oh yeah, something about "my rights are being taken away and freedom is dyin...blah blah blah"
Regular people (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Regular people (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know how many websites there are that are exclusive content for mature women, or grandpa's fucking? You might not like the scooer mom, but check out how many MILF websites there are. Lots of people like these 30-50 year old women in pantyhose.
Don't be suprised if these x-ray naked pictures make it to the web. If someone can steal Star Wars Revenge of the Sith, before it made it to theaters, then someone will get these pics on the web.
Might be bad news! (Score:3, Funny)
sample pic (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.freedomisslavery.info/index.php?p=1138 [freedomisslavery.info]
Re:sample pic (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.freedomisslavery.info/index.php?p=1138 [freedomisslavery.info]
Wow, that just looks gross, I certainly don't envy them!
Thomas Jefferson saw this coming (Score:5, Insightful)
When can we expect... (Score:5, Funny)
</obligatory>
This is old (Score:5, Informative)
This is old tech, and while privacy is a concern, I'd rather have someone checkin' out my jimmah if it means weapons have a lesser chance of getting on the plane.
As an asside: I don't think tighter passenger security is where we should be headed: I think we should lock down the air planes. The cockpit simply isn't accessable from the main carrage of the plane, there would literally be a seperate entrance externally. Further, I favor undercover armed guards on every flight. Police officers, if you will.
I think this would go a long way in making our flights more secure, without having to resort to privacy encroachment methods.
Re:This is old (Score:3, Funny)
Privacy should always be a concern... (Score:3, Insightful)
--Abraham Lincoln
Re:This is old (Score:3, Insightful)
For example I shudder when I see the huge snaking queues caused by heightened security at most airports. It would be absolutely trivial to take out a hundred people and severely injure several hundred more in any major US airport. How so? Wait for some popular holiday (e.g. this weekend) and walk in the front door with a suitcase
Two sides (Score:5, Insightful)
However the human side wins out here , this is totaly unacceptable . they will have to have seperat entrances for men and woman as people are uncomfy with a member of th oposite sex seeing them in the all together(not everyone mind you)
If i want sweaty security gaurds seeing me in the buff i will get a website for it , I don't want to have this foist upon me by over zelous national security.
Are you suprised? What did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
The city of chicago followed next, installing 3000 camera's. They can look inside cars. They can tell if you're smoking a joint. They can tell if you're talking to a prostitute.
The city of naperville is installing fingerprint machines in order for people to use the library.
The United States Congress is pushing for a national ID card, with biometrics.
Lets face it, people will soon be tracked, it will be impossible to just slip into a city. The police will know who you are and where you are at all times.
They will soon take your DNA, without your agreement. Anyone hear about DNA dragnets being used in towns? And it is easy for them to get it. They pull you over in your car, they take you down to the station with a bogus charge. They take your picture and fingerprints. They then tell you, we'll we made a mistake, sorry, you're free to go. And as you leave, they vacum up the hair that fell out off your head. Now they have all the information, and there is nothing you can do about it.
So what if they can see you naked? Big deal. That should be the least of your worries, that Officer Friendly can see your wee-wee. What would worry me more is he can keep a tab on what your reading at the library.
Databases are here to stay, and in the future your whole life will exist in a database, somewhere.
It sucks, but that is the preperation for the revolution. If you're not willing to work 50 hours a week just to cover your rent, you will be labled a terrorist. Cuba is waiting for all who complain.
CA's Proposition 62: PASSED (Score:3, Interesting)
This is already the case in California [smartvoter.org]. Get charged or simply arrested for a felony, get your DNA added to the dbase. Done deal. Doesn't matter if you're guilty or not. An arrest is all it takes.
W
Re:Are you suprised? What did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some points to consider:
1) It's true, sheeple - IIRC, the majority of (all?) examples given are actually real.
2) Given it's true, it's a fucking disgrace. It's cause for armed rebellion in the streets, not a few confortable chuckles.
I always avoid content-free posts from people carping about the moderation system, but Jesus Fucking Christ on a crutch.
Trialling it in London (Score:3, Interesting)
I usually avoid Heathrow like the plauge because of the long queues and usually use London City Airport [flylcy.com] as you can check in there 20 mins before take off. However, one day I had to fly from terminal 4 at Heathrow and while waiting in a 40 minute queue to get through security I noticed that they always seemed to pick the slim and reasonably attractive types for the body scan. So either that was coincidence or there was a few pervs there.
"This device was developed... (Score:4, Funny)
Things overheard at the airport (Score:4, Funny)
guy: Who me?
security guy: Yes you with the cock ring
No free pr0n (Score:3, Informative)
The operators of the scanners are only allowed to scan people of the same sex as themself.
Re:No free pr0n (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it's another guy who's looking at me, doesn't mean it's OKAY. Some people may be very uncomfortable with their body. Why should they have to get naked every time they go on a flight?
So this is not child pornography? (Score:4, Interesting)
Work for the government, get paid, and get to watch naked kids all day long...
There is relly no need to encrypt your files [slashdot.org], after all.
I'm just waiting to see how long it will be before someone start posting those pictures.
Great Demo! (Score:3, Informative)
I don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't even perceive this as invasion of privacy. If airlines (or TSA) were smart, they'd run both "old fashioned" and "X-ray" things in parallel. X-ray line would move much faster, so people would be going there even though this means showing someone their hairy asses.
WWJAD (Score:4, Funny)
Technical specifications and FAQ here (Score:4, Informative)
A couple or more things (Score:5, Informative)
2) The amount of radiation received is portrayed as being low. What they neglect to mention is the dosage per UNIT TIME. Sure, you get more on an International flight, but it is amortized over a number of hours, not minutes or seconds. For example, a bone marrow recipient has the old defective marrow killed off by radiation over a couple of days; the same dosage would be fatal if given over a short time period. You also have to add in the cumulative effect of being scanned now in ADDITION to any other radiation you already would receive. If you fly frequently, this may be alarming.
3) This still does nothing for explosives smuggled internally, or for the 95% of unscreened checked luggage. It also does nothing to protect people standing in lines for tickets or at the terminal.
For instance, imagine the TSA actually catches a suicide bomber strapped with explosives. Well, he or she can take out hundreds of people in those parallel security lines, from a combination of different flights...
Thus, all the screening they have added is NOT for protecting people, but for protecting PLANES. Planes are expensive.
Finally, remember in Israel they made it very hard to hijack a plane. What happened? They got suicide bombers every OTHER place instead. Night clubs, restaurants, cafes, on buses, in traffic, everywhere. If you don't want suicide bombers, you have to prevent people from WANTING to do it in the first place. Trying to catch them in the act is going after the symptom, not the root problem.
Airplanes are more secure now for one reason only. The passengers now know to fight back.
We aren't going to see another hijacking for that reason alone. However, there are numerous ways to sneak items onboard which could take out the plane. And it is trivial to leave an unattended package in a crowded line, and an incident at a major airport will shut it down and snarl traffic across the country just as well as if it were on a plane.
It is impossible to stop 100% of determined attacks. The best defense is to avoid having enemies that hate you to that extent in the first place.
Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
But can I take these four bottles of duty-free vodka which can be turned into extremely sharp weapons in about five seconds in my hand luggage? Of course you can sir.
If they're naked too, and it's not recorded (Score:3, Insightful)
Safety? (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I know, pregnent women may opt to NOT go through the trial devices at heathrow. This to me implies that there is a level of risk involved that I am not prepared to accept.
There are also no clear guidelines on vetting the staff that will use these. Sure, you can only scan people of the same sex, but that doesn't exclude homosexual screeners. The whole point of same-sex screeners is to remove any sexual element from the scan, but it doesn't do that at all.
And let's not forget the 'Think of the children' angle of course
I guess this is just one more reason for me to keep my foreign investment out of the USA and take it somewhwere else. This does completely fuck up my 30th birthday plans of course, but I'll find somewhere else to go.
Details & sample images of 5-year-OLD technolo (Score:5, Informative)
Rather than being afraid of "scary things yet to come", if that has an overtone of "don't panic"..., have a look at this excerpt from a scholarly article (and that's by a Professor of Law) on what was known the technology could do more than half a decade ago already: Froomkin, The Death of Privacy, p. 1499-1501 (p. 39-41 of the PDF) [miami.edu].
Resolution 1 millimeter even back then, with drastic explanations of what that means.
Now... panic!
Hot Celebs Naked! (Score:3, Informative)
I am Going to Make a Fortune (Score:3, Funny)
I am going to patent a line of obfuscation undergarments and make a fortune. Using metal microfilament thread woven into a mesh. You'll be able to choose between a smilie face, a finger flipping the TSA the bird and for the more adventurous, the John Holmes line (only available as boxers).
And That Buys You What, Exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides which, the golden age of hijacking planes is now over. No group of passengers or crew is going to allow it anymore. Pull any shit on a plane and you'll get your ass tackled by every person on the plane. If they somehow still succeed, the government will have no problem blowing a civilian aircraft out of the sky now that they know what their alternatives are. I got even money on any single fighter pilot being able to pull the trigger on civilians, which is one of the reasons they scramble two.
The more I see stuff like this, the more I'm inclined to believe that no one in the government has any idea how to actually keep its citizens safe. I'm think that this, like many other "security measures" since 9/11, is a placebo designed soley to comfort an ignorant population by making them think that someone is actually doing something useful. Certainly a naked X-ray is a much more comforting thought than is the idea that you could be on the receiving end of an air-to-air missile if someone does actually succeed in hijacking your plane...
Can I see you naked please? (Score:5, Insightful)
No?
How about if I screen you every time you walk through my front door with something that allows me to see you essentially naked, no matter what you feel about that?
Forget asking nicely, get fucking naked, now. I need to make sure you're not carrying anything like a nail file, or a pen.
that's the problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't worry folks (Score:3, Insightful)