Yesterday, we had a pretty good mini-debate about Liberty vs. Security. We all have different levels of comfort with how invasive we are willing to let airport security get in order to Keep Us Safe. (I capitalize Keep Us Safe because it's become a catch phrase to the media as much as Just Say No and War on Terror have.)
We all agreed we wanted to stay true to the constitution and had a very good discussion when talking about these things in theory. Today, I stumbled across an article about the full body scanners being used in Britain and the imagery that accompanied the piece jarred me to the point where I'd be willing to say I'd refuse to fly if I had to go through one of those scans. I'd rather have the airport pat me down and reach inside my clothes if I was allowed to remain covered. Dear TSA: There are some things You Just Don't Want To See.
I don't mean to make light of this. Terrorism is a threat. People want us to die. But as we discussed yesterday, where does it end? What's next? Terrorists blow up shopping malls - do we go through one to enter a mall? And if the terrorists send a hottie through, who's to say the operator isn't so busy looking at the goods they miss suspicious materials? Whatever the price of protection is, this is too much. Period.
Does this keep us safe?
See the images:
i think greyhound & amtrak allow concealed weapons like metro, but not 100% sure of this. if they do it would be pointless to consider them safe alternates, unless you have no fear of the countless american "terrorists" who go postal and kill randomly in their workplaces and private homes. the same america where mental health screenings have become non-existent. as far as body scans how would screening personnel tell whether a person had an explosive or implanted medical device? i would prefer professionally trained, degreed and well compensated airline personnel. regulation should be mandatory, unions based upon employee demand. but security guards are no substitute.
YOUR body must look significantly better in the scanner that what I perceive MINE to look like. Let's just say that 20 years ago I would have welcomed this technology. We had our 40 year high school class reunion last October........beedless to say, my "I'd like to sleep with her" list has shrunk considerably. Among other things. :-)
P.S. And yes, Des, we all know you are against this even though you have big hands and big ears.
Ok, I'm going to sound like a Republican now.
How much will my taxes go up in order to pay TSA employees the wage they will demand to stand there day after day looking at ugly naked bodies?
I have a lot of reasons, really personal ones, for being very supportive of the right to privacy. But frankly, I'm not all that bothered by body scans. I think we have learned that those determined to do us harm are very skilled, even if horribly demented. If this is what it takes to keep me or my family from being blown apart on an airplane, let some TSA guard look at my parts all he or she wants.
How obtrusive is it to stand in front of a scanner? We walk through metal detectors without concern. I'm more concerned with someone waving a phallic hand held metal detecting wand near my bodily orifices.
Everyone scanned looks like a faceless mannequin zombie. I can't tell in the top picture if it's some stranger, my wife, or J Load. I don't see the privacy concern.
And Carol, you better not be snitchin' to my wife on FB! ;-)
I'm with Scott. If this method of security were 100% effective, I'd consider the price worth it. However, it will never be 100% effective, so it's essentially one more area of security for extremely dedicated terrorists to get around, while it significantly impacts my sense of privacy.
Bubba, it would only be "worth it" to the airlines if people still decide to fly at the same numbers as they do now, with this screening in place. If it affects their revenue, they probably won't think it's worth it. I would probably fly less often if I had to do this, on principle alone. I truly do not believe it would make me any safer statistically.
In the same vein as what Voice noted, if we have different planes for those who submit to being scanned versus those who don't, what would the compliance rate be?
And based on the sample photos, they appear to be clearly effective detectors. Yes, no system (especially those that require human judgment) is foolproof safe, but would you rather risk a few slipping through distracted agents or have them all slip through unscanned? If it thwarts even one attempted attack, wouldn't it be worth it then?
Frankly, I don't care. Just put the stupid people in a different lane so I don't have to stand behind them for an hour.
I don't know about this. Splat my pudgy,lumpy, silhouette up on the "big screen" at Concourse C for everyone to see???????????? OTOH, I don't want to plunge to earth amidst a burning pile or airplane rubble either................"Goooo Greyhound, and leave the driving to us."
I had my say yesterday. TODAY, I am gonna take a more "pro" approach.
Many people in this country are overweight. If you want something that will really attack that problem head-on.............here it is. It might NOT make EVERYBODY go on a diet and lose weight. But it might everybody who flies. :-)
I frankly don't care a whole lot about who sees me naked, and don't really understand why other people do. But I do care about our security procedures. When TSA was instituted during the Bush administration, he and the Republican Congress were hell-bent to ensure that TSA employees were not unionized.
The problem is that you get what you pay (and train) for. Having been through Israeli security on a number of occasions, I can tell you that their agents are smart, and they're good. Their primary screening tool is their intellect, as it should be. Only one thing missed their attention in the times I've been through, and I never sought to bring in (or take out) anything of real concern. U.S. security is incompetent in comparison.
Reliance on scanners, rather than on well-trained personnel, is a real mistake. Scanners are certainly invaluable, but require use by intelligent and well-trained people with good, keen instincts and excellent interrogatory skills.
I get concerned because of the things I've read about TSA hiring procedures. Theres been more than one scandal involving the hiring of felons and the lack of real security training these people go through. Then theres the TSA people that have been caught removing cameras, meds, etc from luggage they are checking. So, are they more interested in what they see or what they can steal to do the job right. ? Would some particularly good looking person divert them so they miss the important things like hidden weapons ? In other words, are the people they hire the people we need to perform real security ? At this point, I have my doubts.
Life is a risk. Terrorists want us to be scared and guess what, they are winning. The rightwing whackjobs have paranoia all packaged up and for sale. FDR ("All we have to fear is fear itself") would be turning over in his grave at the hysteria. The chances are higher that I'll get t-boned driving home from work. Or that I'll get struck by lightning. Or that a tornado will blow my house into the land of Oz.
If it comes to a choice between security and freedom, I'll take freedom for $100, thanks. A person in a police state - or in a jail cell - might be "secure", but he sure as hell ain't free.
Considering that on top of all this shit, customer service and comfort on an airplane sucks these days...unless it's an emergency and I can't avoid it, I'll drive wherever I need to go.
And I wish to hell the government - or industries - would start bringing the train systems back. High speed trains are in use everywhere else in the world. Why not here?
I think there are two considerations:
1. How obtrusive is the safety procedure?
2. How effective is the safety procedure?
If you want the most effective then putting everyone under a local before they board would be the most effective. However, that would be most obtrusive (but a dream for flight attendants). I'm not sure how effective the full cavity search would be. In that vain, if it has limited effectiveness then it is not worth the obtrusiveness. Then again, I'm not a security expert