Indeed. I am so tired of our president trying to make nice with the neo-cons and perpetuate their horrible laws. He needs to do what Barney Frank did and form a coalition with Libertarians on these issues and go completely around the rest of the Republican leadership. The people who started this can't keep it alive if they're taking flak from both sides.

That's absolutely sickening.

this topic is lol

I don't give a flaming f**k if the TSA has an xray of my body. Most people shouldn't, and I don't really see the problem. You are actually exposed to far more radiation sitting on the plane for an hour than a brief flash from the scanner, and the scanner provides a safe and speedy confirmation of a passengers security without the need for pat downs.

The problem occurs when passengers don't want to cooperate, and I agree the TSA doesn't handle these cases very well. Frankly, they should just use the scanner and eliminate patdowns altogether. "No ray, no way" they should just point people who refuse the scanner to the exit, since they clearly don't want the patdown either. People just can't expect to get on the plane without these security checks, and if they're going to try to inhibit use of more convenient technology, then they shouldn't be getting on planes.

Those scanning machines only serve up about 3 microrems per scan, 8 seconds per scan. You could stand in a scanner for 4 months and keep your annual radiation exposure adequately safe (5000 millirems or less). By TSA regulation all scan images are not stored unless a security threat is noted and other images are erased immediately after scan.

How can a noun be and action phrase? "lol" is not an adjective.

The problem is I shouldn't have to get xrayed in order to fly, and it only makes sense as a security procedure if they do it to absolutely everyone. And even then it's a violation of my human rights (implied constitutional right to privacy extends to this).

I've always refused the scanner, and just gone with a pat down instead. They've never been aggressive about. However, as the article elfprince posted demonstrates, that's not always the case. What was done to that woman is a very clear violation of human rights, and I certainly hope you're not trying to justify that or make excuses. To tell me I can't FLY because I refuse a completely unlawful and unhelpful search is out of life. I'll end with two quotes:
1: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Franklin
2: A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

Last I read a dramatically increased rate of cancer has been found in TSA employees.

That is not relevant.



They want to do it to everyone. It's better than the patdown in nearly all ways for everyone involved. They can't because it's still a controversial issue, but I have faith that technology and convenience will prevail in the end.

About human rights, it is actually not completely protected in this circumstance by the wording of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12, which states that no one shall be subjected to ARBITRARY interference with his privacy. This actually targets random patdowns, not the scanner, which is intended to scan everyone. You have to make a choice in whether you trust the TSA to touch you or for a machine to scan you. The passenger normally chooses the patdown. The TSA should, as said earlier, simply scan everyone and only perform patdowns and searches on individuals caught carrying something through the scanner.

The system sucks, but someone needs to stand up and make the scanners mandatory. You said it yourself that's the only way the scanners make sense as a security procedure, when they're no longer arbitrary.

I won't touch the "implied" right to privacy in the Constitution. It is clearly stated on that UN document, which the Constitution DOES protect and enforce.



I don't believe they were that aggressive to Miss Amy Alkon and that it was a standard patdown, but then again, a lot of people consider it a bias when I call on her fairly prevalent attention whore reputation (note that there is no TSA side to the story, because it never successfully went to court and no one cares about the TSA, clearly). This is a lady that makes a living on writing shock articles to gain an extended readership. Case in point? "Hello, Psycho", one of her more famous articles in which she describes her campaign to put vulgar business cards on the windshields of SUVs. Have you seen her book, aptly labeled "I See Rude People"?

I'm sorry, but when the TSA is under such scrutiny right now, it does not make sense they would pull a stunt like this. This is the only horror story to surface AFTER the TSA were thrust into the spotlight. Because Alkon's credibility is completely down the toilet it's a lot easier to see how this is simply another shock article especially considering how she handled the legal situation since the month of March, as in how she didn't do anything at all.

If she only experienced the regulation norm patdown, then her rights were not infringed on. But because of her reputation, we'll never know.

Additionally, FLYING is not a human right, it is a privilege. You can fly if you agree to their terms and conditions. If you don't like those terms, complain to someone who can and will try to change those conditions, or don't fly. Clearly you don't see a problem with the patdown, but you doubt the patdown is the same for all flights and passengers. If that is the case, why do you still choose the patdown?

The Franklin quote is really overused, and also irrelevant because we have yet to prove any essential liberty was given up.

Not sure what you meant by a witty saying. Sounds like you're spouting garbage yourself.

I would agree with this 100% if it were actually remotely true:

Myth: We need the TSA to help protect us.



Sorry, couldn't resist. lol

No, the myth was that the body scanners actually detect weapons, which they often don't

Like it or not, the TSA does have a legitimate purpose. We can't simply let the airlines handle their own security, because when they skimp on safety(as for-profit corporations always do wherever possible), and one of their planes gets hijacked, it essentially becomes a cruise missile, and that makes it dangerous to EVERYONE in the blast radius, not just those who chose to patronize that airline.

That said, the agency needs some serious overhauling. First off, we need to consolidate the countless anti-terrorism agencies the Republicans created after 9/11 into a single entity or a handful of entities with clear boundaries and goals, so that anti-terror information gets where it needs to without having to go through a hundred different agencies(this is what allowed for two Christmas Day bomb plots to be carried out). The TSA then needs to establish reasonable standards for security that actually work(like metal detectors and bomb sniffers), and enforce those standards unilaterally while still having their own boundaries they can't cross(like that fondling is a no-no).

I doubt we'll ever see another U.S. plane hijacked in our lifetime, don't spread FUD.
a) The pilot's doors are pretty well locked and secured. Nobody is getting there very easily, regardless of how many box-cutters they have. Our childhood experience of chilling with the pilot and getting cool stuff may be gone forever, but this is one of the things that has changed positively about airline travel from a safety perspective.
b) The single most important lesson the American public learned from 9/11 was "don't sit still and let people take over the plane you're in"
c) Most commercial airliners are essentially on autopilot for most of the trip anyway, barring take-off and landing. Lock them into that course (within a statistically acceptable margin) and require a code or ground authorization to change it.


These don't actually work since weapons don't have to be metal.

Piano wire is undetectable by metal detectors, as are sharpened plastic pieces.

The whole fingernail clipper rule takes things way too far in the extreme.

That's why I said reasonable measures. You're never going to stop every possible plan, but you can make it so it takes more thought than "I'm pissed off and want to kill lots of people". Anything that gets past security can be dealt with by air marshals(of which there should be at least 2 on every plane).

@Elfprince:

When one person says "Let's be reasonable" and you say "No", you're probably on the wrong side...

6 per plane would be best. 2 to the front, 2 to the middle, 2 to the rear. This way there is little chance they can be blocked in someway from doing their jobs, and there would be more than enough to go about protecting the people.

My opinion anyways.

That would cost a lot of money. One armed marshal is all that would be necessary to foil just about any plot in which the bad guys don't have guns or bombs(which is what the metal detectors and bomb sniffers are for). A second would be a good idea just in case. If on the other hand, the bad guys do get a gun or bomb on the plane, then you have a flying tin can full of corpses(which is why reasonable measures should be taken to prevent that).

Um... Let's say there are right now about 5000 flights in the air, that would be 30,000 air marshals needed. About 5000 less than the total amount of people who work for the FBI. That's a little unreasonable. Especially given how tiny some of those planes are.

That's why 1 or 2 per large passenger flight would be more realistic.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/14/7762175-naked-scanners-may-soon-be-on-the-way-out

Seems new scanners will soon be employed that will remove any possibility of nude stills being kept. And they are promising less pat downs.

Awesome news, hopefully all this happens locally before my flight to Mississippi in November.

If they actually do detect weapons, I can support this, but if they still let blades and bombs(the underwear bomber would have gotten through one of the earlier scanners no problem) then there still isn't any reason to use them instead of metal detectors and bomb sniffers.

The privacy issue regarding these scanners needs to die though. As scanning technology get's better and cheaper, it's going to be in more places, and from a libertarian standpoint you can't argue that your individual privacy trumps a store or bar owner's right to use a scanner if they choose. Just about every science-fiction franchise has scanners of one kind or another, and it's never an issue. You don't see the Romulan Ambassador b!tching to Chief O'Brien that the transporter got a picture of his junk. As we head into the future, this technology is going to appear in more and more places, and we're just going to have to accept it.

That said, the technology isn't ready yet to be used like that, as it is still slow and lets a lot of things through that a traditional metal detector or bomb sniffer would not. There's no reason to push it when it can't yet do it's job, and the fact that companies are making loads of cash off these useless machines has me concerned. When the technology is ready, however, and can quickly and effectively detect any and all threats on a person, we're going to have to put this privacy issue to rest. There are plenty of reasons these scanners shouldn't be used yet, but "privacy" shouldn't be one of them.