By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - do you agree with the new TSA security measures?

 

do you agree with the new TSA security measures?

yes 24 25.26%
 
no 47 49.47%
 
don't care 11 11.58%
 
another great thread,from... 1 1.05%
 
it's all overblown 2 2.11%
 
the should use different tactics 9 9.47%
 
Total:94
twesterm said:
leatherhat said:
tuscaniman said:
mhsillen said:
tuscaniman said:
leatherhat said:
tuscaniman said:

How quickly we forget about 9/11. I guess its going to take another 3,000 people to die in a terrorist attack for people to stop whining because they are embarrassed to get in the full body scanner. Here are a couple options to get over that problem.

1. Go to the gym if you are embarrased about your body.

2. Don't fly on a plane.

One of those options should fix the problem.


You realize that its not just invasive, its very ineffective right?


My mom works for TSA. I'll ask her personally how ineffective it is. You don't like it then blame the terrorists for creating the need for things like this.


Yes we should it's called profiling, saves alot of money.

Hire well educated interviewers who do the job subtly so as not to embarrass

Just like Israel who have not been attacked in years


Yeah I agree profiling would work except we know that can't happen because of the nonstop lawsuits that would ensue.

Depends on how we play it, the Israeli's use mostly psych profiling- which doesn't discriminate against against race or religion. Just crazies. 

You don't think racial profiling would cause a shit storm?

No matter how fair it actually is, the press would immediately make a hayday of it and it wouldn't last long at all.

Also, I'm curious, how do you psych profile someone by seeing them for all of two seconds?


The Israelis watch people for more than two seconds, they watch them from the time they approach to the time they board. Anything suspicious at any point and they make a move. And trust me, these guys are pros at it. As far as the racial thing is concerned, psych profiling ignores race- to an extent. But America is so concerned with being PC over being reasonable that I completely agree that you're right- the press would cause a shitstorm and we would have PC over security. 



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Around the Network
Gnizmo said:

Question for the people advocating all these measures. Wjat stops say a dozen terrorist from arming themselves to the teeth, driving a van screaming up to the airport, and then just shooting their way to the first airplane and forcing it to take off? The security certainly isn't near strong enough to stop this, and they could do as much damage as any other method of plane hijacking, if not more.


How many terrorists are we talking? Less than 10 and in an international airport you possibly will have enough security to at least hold them back long enough for the cavalry to arrive. Much more than 10 and it really becomes an issue of intelligence - it should have been picked up long before they got to the airport.

 

(Not at Gnizmo anymore) I'm not understanding the racial profiling argument, are you saying strip searches are bad and a violation of human rights - unless they're done to Arabs in which case its ok? Or am I missing something? - which is quite possible



Agreed with some here - bring back racial profiling and all is fixed.



The Carnival of Shadows - Folk Punk from Asbury Park, New Jersey

http://www.thecarnivalofshadows.com 


Raze said:

Agreed with some here - bring back racial profiling and all is fixed.

 

How? As I just said, if these searches are 'against human rights' then they must be against all humans rights, they can't be ok for Arabs and not ok for everybody else.

This isn't even touching on the issue of whether racial profiling itself is ok by the way, that's a whole different kettle of fish.



I... don't really care about full body scanners... as long as we know a few things.

 

1) Health issues.  Are there any?

2) People working the machines... women operating the machines for women atleast.  I don't care if a dude or a woman is looking at me naked, but considering society as it is, i'd rather have women be running the scanners for women.

3) ... I guess that's it really.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith said:
Gnizmo said:
SamuelRSmith said:


I think the fact that it doesn't have a very high chance of being successful is what is preventing this from happening.


Have you seen the security at airports in the USA? I have. A fully armed dozen people out for blood would make it through fine. Especially with a handy number of body shields running around panicked out of their mind. Keep in mind that people keeping the peace would have to care a great deal about civilian casualties.


Yeah, I've seen the security at airports in the US, seems pretty tight. Do you realise how long it would take for terrorists to "shoot their way" to the nearest plane? Longer than the amount of time it takes for Emergency Response Units to reach the scene, I'm sure.

EDIT: Oh, and don't get me wrong, I voted "no" on the poll, I am very much against body scanners and the like, I just don't think your "what if" scenario is likely.


Why would anyone bother to shoo their way to a plane anyway?  A dozen fully armed people could probably do more damage as is, then trying to attempt another 9/11 style attack.

That's why the most recent terrorist information has been about gathering people in groups of 6 and arming them to just gun people down until taken down by police.



mhsillen said:
Cobretti2 said:

well

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/airport-pat-down-leaves-traveller-covered-in-urine/story-e6frfq80-1225958372649

 

this says it all really.



oh sorry you posted the story already 

That does say it all


hehe nvm. It is hard reading 9 pages of this. 

There is also another link in mine to a lady with plastic breasts who had breast cancer they felt her up and said wtf is this and told her to remove the plastic breast to check it. 

Next stage of security will be open surgery to see if you are carrying a bomb inside your body. Cause the scanner are sure as hell not going to find anything.

Also people who think a terrorist will bring guns through front door is kidding themselves. This will be done through bribing behind the scene employees in baggage or a insider. Or even when the plain goes through maintenance in some 3rd world country. They will store the weapons months in advance if they want to.  



 

 

No, and anyone that says yes deserves to be felt up by a creepy old male security guard



Problems that I have against the scanners.

Think of it console evolution from the 8bit era up until now. Graphics get upgraded, so, those scanners will be upgraded. Since you weren't against it when the graphics were blurry, you shouldn't have problem with it now, right? You're already too late to fight it.

They claimed to not have keep a backup of those scans. Well, guess what happened? They do have a backup.

They claimed the radiation dose is low, but have refused all third party to run their tests.

We are told it's safe, and that's it. No proof needed. Just like how they don't keep backup of your scans.

How often are those machines being serviced to check for the radiation level? They could become malfunction and produce more radiation than they are supposed to. You know how restaurants get checked regularly for cleaniness and safety and get those "passed" document they can stick out the front windows for customers to see, where are those for these nude machines?

What happens if 5 years from now, you suddenly found out, those scans caused you cancer. What can you do? Your life suddenly is ruined because you just chose to believe the machines were safe.

And, when you fly, you get a dose of radiation already. Even if the scan is less than that, you just exposed yourself to additional radiation, not less. Remember, B is less than A, does not mean A B is less than A.

You may not care that your junk be seen, that does not automatically apply to everyone.



Galaki said:

Problems that I have against the scanners.

Think of it console evolution from the 8bit era up until now. Graphics get upgraded, so, those scanners will be upgraded. Since you weren't against it when the graphics were blurry, you shouldn't have problem with it now, right? You're already too late to fight it.

They claimed to not have keep a backup of those scans. Well, guess what happened? They do have a backup.

They claimed the radiation dose is low, but have refused all third party to run their tests.

We are told it's safe, and that's it. No proof needed. Just like how they don't keep backup of your scans.

How often are those machines being serviced to check for the radiation level? They could become malfunction and produce more radiation than they are supposed to. You know how restaurants get checked regularly for cleaniness and safety and get those "passed" document they can stick out the front windows for customers to see, where are those for these nude machines?

What happens if 5 years from now, you suddenly found out, those scans caused you cancer. What can you do? Your life suddenly is ruined because you just chose to believe the machines were safe.

And, when you fly, you get a dose of radiation already. Even if the scan is less than that, you just exposed yourself to additional radiation, not less. Remember, B is less than A, does not mean A B is less than A.

You may not care that your junk be seen, that does not automatically apply to everyone.

So, what you are saying is.... you have a small junk.  (I kid, I kid.)