A

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 3:44 PM GMT
    A
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 4:59 PM GMT
    I agree. I am more concerned about my body being blown into the ether at 30,000 feet than I am about some TSA operative seeing a blurry monochrome image of my body.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 5:29 PM GMT
    Damn- I look good naked. That's part of why I spend all that time in the gym....
  • John6311

    Posts: 165

    Jan 20, 2013 5:30 PM GMT
    Call me vain - but every time I went into one of these, I quickly adjusted my junk so it looked ok to the screener. haha..
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Jan 20, 2013 5:32 PM GMT
    The TSA is not pulling ALL body scanner - just the x-ray backscatter machines. They will be replaced by millimeter wave scanners. And there is more to this story than just the images of your genitalia. The backscattering machines have long been controversial because there is no such thing as a perfectly safe dose of x-rays. Back of the envelope calculations indicate that they may cause perhaps one case of cancer per year, but that can of course never be conclusively proven. Imagine if TSA randomly pulled one person per year out of the line and shot him? So TSA was under fire to replace these machines with the safer millimeter wave scanners. But to get out of the contract with the manufacturer, they had to show that the machines didn't satisfy the sepcifications. They couldn't do this on the radiation issue, so the looked for something that's more clear-cut. And the lack of image processing capability to ensure privacy was just very convenient - it also showed the public how much TSA cares about your privacy (ahhm...)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 5:33 PM GMT
    I want hardcore TSA gay porn with some really thorough search scenes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 5:44 PM GMT
    The thing is, that the people flying, that submit to these scans are those that are already law-abiding. Regulating the already law abiding doesn't do anything to those that have the bad intentions.....just like guns...those that are following the law are not the issue, its the ones that aren't following existing laws. Adding more regulation to the existing laws doesn't change the intentions of law breakers... To this day if I saw a TSA agent in trouble vs a quarter on the ground, guess which one gets my attention first?icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 5:53 PM GMT
    Never been through the scanner, but I think the radiation is questionable. I think they've found more about them that makes them unreliable. I mean when people are going to light their underwear on fire... I mean what scanner is going to detect that. Next thing they'll be asking Dogs to sniff your crotch for explosives. There has to be a reasonable limit on all this crap.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 7:24 PM GMT
    Well, as someone who doesn't necessarily look good naked, this made me uncomfortable.

    I just ultimately considered it a necessary evil.

    What's worse these days is the pat down where the TSA agent gets to 3rd base with you. I believe they owe me dinner and a movie after that. icon_neutral.gif

    I will be shallow - it's one thing if the TSA guy is hot, but let's be honest - it's usually not.


    Side note: @ Sungod... You should come over to my place and we can role play TSA... icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 8:08 PM GMT
    The scanners are outrageously expensive, easily fooled. There is no evidence they have made is safer, and more importantly they have created an illusory "security theater" that distracts us from the only provably effective means of screening, rigorous background checks.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 8:19 PM GMT
    tumblr_m3s16fgsUA1rvfsbko1_500.gif
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 20, 2013 8:21 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidThe scanners are outrageously expensive, easily fooled. There is no evidence they have made is safer, and more importantly they have created an illusory "security theater" that distracts us from the only provably effective means of screening, rigorous background checks.



    Exactly. How many terrorist attempts has the TSA actually stopped since its inception? Zero. It's a lot of money for taxpayers, and trouble for travelers, that has amounted to nothing more than making terrorists more creative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 8:22 PM GMT
    Good....I kinda prefer getting violated with their hands anyways icon_redface.gif

    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 8:35 PM GMT
    The bigger problem is the contract with the manufacturer requires automated threat detection and it hasn't arrived.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/19/tsa_pulls_rapiscan_perv_scanners/

    Gives the TSA too much detail to look at and slows the lines down.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 8:38 PM GMT
    Medjai said
    TigerTim saidThe scanners are outrageously expensive, easily fooled. There is no evidence they have made is safer, and more importantly they have created an illusory "security theater" that distracts us from the only provably effective means of screening, rigorous background checks.



    Exactly. How many terrorist attempts has the TSA actually stopped since its inception? Zero. It's a lot of money for taxpayers, and trouble for travelers, that has amounted to nothing more than making terrorists more creative.


    Airport physical security checks are not really designed to capture terrorists (though they could). They are there to act as a deterrent. If you took away physical security checks at airports (and relied purely on intelligence and passenger profiling), how long do you think it would be before another terrorist brought down an aircraft (given that AQ are still fixated on doing just that)? I'd give it 6 months to a year.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 20, 2013 8:45 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    Medjai said
    TigerTim saidThe scanners are outrageously expensive, easily fooled. There is no evidence they have made is safer, and more importantly they have created an illusory "security theater" that distracts us from the only provably effective means of screening, rigorous background checks.



    Exactly. How many terrorist attempts has the TSA actually stopped since its inception? Zero. It's a lot of money for taxpayers, and trouble for travelers, that has amounted to nothing more than making terrorists more creative.


    Airport physical security checks are not really designed to capture terrorists (though they could). They are there to act as a deterrent. If you took away physical security checks at airports (and relied purely on intelligence and passenger profiling), how long do you think it would be before another terrorist brought down an aircraft (given that AQ are still fixated on doing just that)? I'd give it 6 months to a year.


    With 9/11 being the only major exception, regular security checks did just fine without TSA protocols. Add in modern equipment, and we'd be fine. No nail clippers, emery boards, or sewing needles? Seriously? It's excessive and unnecessary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 9:06 PM GMT
    Medjai said
    TigerTim saidThe scanners are outrageously expensive, easily fooled. There is no evidence they have made is safer, and more importantly they have created an illusory "security theater" that distracts us from the only provably effective means of screening, rigorous background checks.



    Exactly. How many terrorist attempts has the TSA actually stopped since its inception? Zero. It's a lot of money for taxpayers, and trouble for travelers, that has amounted to nothing more than making terrorists more creative.

    I like to think that post 9-11, its going to require dental records to identify what's left of anyone trying to pull a box cutter mid-flight... But, In the end, there are lives at stake both on the aircraft and on the ground, our economy is fragile as it is, and people are still intent on doing evil.

    The TSA isn't going anywhere.

    For me, the trouble with air travel is I want to check my bags because I'm not an oblivious selfish moron.

    But, my fellow travelers cause me to fantasize about sedation during the luggage check process because they keep getting into arguments over bag fees and holding up the m*ther f*ing lines.icon_evil.gificon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 9:08 PM GMT
    Medjai said

    With 9/11 being the only major exception, regular security checks did just fine without TSA protocols. Add in modern equipment, and we'd be fine. No nail clippers, emery boards, or sewing needles? Seriously? It's excessive and unnecessary.

    No, 9/11 proved what WILL happen again if we don't have these checks.
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Jan 20, 2013 9:09 PM GMT
    Much of the current TSA protocol seems to be designed to demonstrate to the flying sheeple that the government is keeping them safe. And it may deter the casual hijacker; they guy who would take the plane to Cuba, but not a seriously planned operation like 9/11. No matter how sophisticated any security operation is, if you want it badly enough and have the resources, there is a way to defeat it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 9:15 PM GMT
    colonialAuthorI think it is plain stupid that people would be more concerned about being seen 'naked' (not quite) through a computer machine were no face is shown, than about their own security while flying.


    Ex_Mil8I agree. I am more concerned about my body being blown into the ether at 30,000 feet than I am about some TSA operative seeing a blurry monochrome image of my body.


    If you see the average TSA worker and feel safer in an airport, I really am jealous of you. That kind of blissfully unaware self-deception really must allow you high levels of satisfaction in every facet of life.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 20, 2013 9:29 PM GMT
    jsq24 said
    colonialAuthorI think it is plain stupid that people would be more concerned about being seen 'naked' (not quite) through a computer machine were no face is shown, than about their own security while flying.


    Ex_Mil8I agree. I am more concerned about my body being blown into the ether at 30,000 feet than I am about some TSA operative seeing a blurry monochrome image of my body.


    If you see the average TSA worker and feel safer in an airport, I really am jealous of you. That kind of blissfully unaware self-deception really must allow you high levels of satisfaction in every facet of life.


    Agreed. I can name several ways to easily get hazardous materials past TSA. Anyone with a basic knowledge of technology or modern materials can. They are not helping, only inconveniencing.
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Jan 20, 2013 9:52 PM GMT
    Security theater indeed. We've all witnessed a country terrorized to the core five weeks ago, without jumping through multiple security hoops.

    If al queda, the allies we've armed in Afghanistan, and now in Libya and Syria, wanted to inflict damage here, there are far easier targets with even bigger impact.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 10:01 PM GMT
    jsq24 said
    If you see the average TSA worker and feel safer in an airport, I really am jealous of you. That kind of blissfully unaware self-deception really must allow you high levels of satisfaction in every facet of life.


    I was merely responding to the OP's question and acknowledging that I place air transport security higher in importance than my personal modesty. Others may think differently and, of course, they are free to choose an alternative means of transport.

    Sorry if I'm not jumping on the band wagon to dismiss physical security measures at airports as superfluous and risible, but I happen to think they are necessary.

    Have a read of the 9/11 Commission Report and then get back to me.
    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Jan 20, 2013 10:07 PM GMT
    Medjai said

    Agreed. I can name several ways to easily get hazardous materials past TSA. Anyone with a basic knowledge of technology or modern materials can. They are not helping, only inconveniencing.


    Indeed. All it takes is for the State Department to physically intervene, force the airline to accept the underwear bomber, even without a passport, and appearing drugged out of his mind.

    After initial denials, the State Department admits this took place after multiple credible witnesses to the scene were unable to get the FBI to intervene. One of the witnesses, Attorney Kurt Haskell was the winner of the D. primary for Congress from the 7th district in MI.

    This all took place just prior to the roll out of these useless security devices.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/09/1081959/--Underwear-Bomber-Passenger-Says-Attack-Was-Staged-by-Government-in-Court-Victim-Impact-Statement#
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2013 10:20 PM GMT
    Security theater. They're just petty deterrents to scare away the amateurs.