Just as I thought. The ACLU!!!

[DasBoot]

Just before sitting down to grab a bite at work, I grabbed a USA Today from Friday, 12/01.
On the front page is a picture of an x-rayed leg with a pistol shown in the thight area.
"Phoenix first test of X-ray device" is headline.
Under which is written "Airport screen raises concerns".
THAT"S ALL I READ, NOTHING MORE!
I immediately started a mild rant about

"There they go again! Here is a new, improved device to use for airport safety, and of course, the liberals and ACLU are complaining about it!!
They're first reaction is never "Oh! That's GREAT! Something new to help us try to protect ourselves. These rotten @$#%^ are CONSTANTLY trying to undermine any attempts to ferret out the BGs, regardless on how it impacts on the rest of us!!!!"

Sure enough, the article goes on to quote an ACLU lackey Barry Steihardt "As this technology becomes commonplace, you're going to start seeing those images all over the Internet."

Better to have 300+ people blown out of the sky I suppose!
Or maybe confiscate all photographic devices that people/paparazzi use to get images for Internet use.
I feel a little bad that I stereotyped the ACLU BEFORE reading the article though.
How un-PC of me!
What a lousy bunch of maggots they are!

 

[FirstFreedom]

Yeah, that sucks that they're trying to protect our privacy from unnecessary government invasions. Especially when we all know that the existing metal detectors don't catch the ceramic Glock 7 like this new device that shows off your private parts and those oh-so-deadly lipstick cases. The ACLU is in essence, nothing more than an arm of Al Quaida, seems to me. I mean hell, you can fit enough explosives in a plastic lipstick case to blow open a bag of peanuts even against the rules during takeoff & landing!

Seriously, the ACLU would have my 100% support if they supported the 2A along with all the other A's. Since they don't, they get 0% of my support. I guess if you are a law and order nazi, AND have one giant-sized weiner, you're all for this device.

 

[DasBoot]

Get your facts straight before you open your mouth!
One of the features of the NEW device is that it BLURS private parts!

Yeah, that sucks that they're trying to protect our privacy from unnecessary government invasions.

UNNECESSARY!!???
X-ray screening at the airport is UNNECESSARY?!?!?
Are you out of your mind?
Or an ACLU member?
So you think that because it doesn't catch EVERYTHING that's potentially harmful, we should'nt strive to improve our screening devices?

 

[aspen1964]

...the ACLU is against my religion and wishes to suppress or eliminate it, so they are of no use to me....a perverted group...

 

[FirstFreedom]

Get your facts straight before you open your mouth!
One of the features of the NEW device is that it BLURS private parts!

I've got MY facts straight, bubba. It only blurs it to the immediate screeners. What is capable of being saved on the hard drive for posterity is everything it picks up. Moreover, if it screens the private parts from the screeners, as is alleged, guess where every bad guy is gonna hide stuff from now on? Which makes this thing useless & unnecessary.

UNNECESSARY!!???
X-ray screening at the airport is UNNECESSARY?!?!?

Yep. That's what I said. If anything, they should screen you and give you a gun if you don't have one, to fight back in the case of a terrorist attack.

Are you out of your mind?

No, that'd be you. You're the one yelling - a good indicator of insanity.

Or an ACLU member?

No, read the fine print in my post above.

So you think that because it doesn't catch EVERYTHING that's potentially harmful, we should'nt strive to improve our screening devices?

No, I think that if we allow valid CCW holders to go on armed, there will be NO more airplane-related terrorism. And I think that the privacy concerns are quite valid. And I think the war on terror is an unwinnable farce from the get-go. And I think that if we surrender our freedoms and our constitution, then the terrorists have won - and we cannot allow such a defeat! And I think that to the extent that we do need object-detectors, the ones we have are more than adequate to detect any real threat. We are NOT going to stop a determined terrorist from doing harm, so the ONLY question left is, do we surrender our freedoms or do we not, in attempting the impossible?

 

[ATW525]

I wouldn't support mandatory backscatter x-raying of passengers, but my understanding is the plan is to make this an alternative to a pat-down at the passenger's option and is only for those who require additional screening beyond the metal detector. In that capacity I don't have a problem with it. Passengers can refuse it and opt for the traditional pat-down instead.

 

[DasBoot]

ATW, That's correct! It is optional.

FF,
It's because of folks such as yourself crying about supposed "intrusions" that we need to develop other devices and/or improve on the ones we have. Which has been done here.

What is capable of being saved on the hard drive for posterity is everything it picks up. Moreover, if it screens the private

So to save us from, in your mind, someone first obtaining the hard drive info and then posting it, you would rather NOT improve our present devices?

Moreover, if it screens the private parts from the screeners, as is alleged, guess where every bad guy is gonna hide stuff from now on? Which makes this thing useless & unnecessary..

If your well endowed, you've got a problem.
Each new innovation brings us closer to more foolproof instruments.
The more obstacles we put in the way of the BG, the higher to probability he/she will be caught.
Surely, EVEN you can figure that out.

If anything, they should screen you and give you a gun if you don't have one, to fight back in the case of a terrorist attack.

OH Yeah! I'm the insane one!!!
Just what I want......300 or so people, in addition to a terrorist, having guns on my flight!!!
Even if it's only CCWs, the probability of a mishap raises dramatically.
CCW passanger bends over to get something, gun reveals itself, terrorist sees gun, etc, etc.
If there IS a problem, do we all shoot a once, or take turns?!
Brilliant idea!
But, gratefully, it doesn't matter what you paranoid/ACLU boys want.
It's going to be used regardless.
If all that needs to be done to add ANY level of security to our travel is to MAYBE have my arse on the Internet, so be it!
But paranoid/conspiracy types like you will always find fault in ANYTHING the gov't does.
So discussing it is rather a waste of time.
And I didn't YELL this time.
Guess I've regained my sanity!

 

[Don H]

Personally, I'm all in favor of strip and cavity searches, and the wearing of issued prison-type garb for airline passengers, all in the name of safety, of course. If this would prevent just one plane from being blown out of the sky, what rational person could object? Aren't the lives of 300+ people worth the minor inconvenience experienced?

Giving this some further thought, since drug smugglers often smuggle large amounts of drugs internally, it's only a matter of time until terrorists do the same thing with C-4 or Semtex. Passengers, therefore, should be X-rayed to ensure their innards are free from explosives. If it prevents just one plane, etc....

 

[jfrey123]

I'm sorry, but these airport check points are continuing to override our 4th Amendment rights. I believe a mandatory x-ray of people is a complete and violation of our rights. Who knows what kind of pervert is behind the monitor poppin' fresh to pictures of your signifigant other's nipples?

My question is what's wrong with the current state of Defcon 3 they've gone to? Metal detectors are the best they've ever been, bags are randomly searched/x-rayed (carry on and check in), and we've got armed Government Agents on most flights. For those of you who trust our Government 100%, trust those Agents, and quit trying to tell us to give up more rights. If they invent a machine that can physically search 4" up every little orafice, while causing "minimal" discomfort, are we supposed to blindly agree to that as well, since it is obviously for "our safety"?

Seriously though, I don't need people scanning and laughin' at my weiner while they're lookin' for Mr. Talaban with a box cutter. If these things become standard around the country, then screw it: The terrorists win cause I'll take the damn train.

Edit: Sorry, had to respond to this.

Personally, I'm all in favor of strip and cavity searches, and the wearing of issued prison-type garb for airline passengers, all in the name of safety, of course. If this would prevent just one plane from being blown out of the sky, what rational person could object? Aren't the lives of 300+ people worth the minor inconvenience experienced?

Minor inconvenience? I seriously hope your joking. Tell a 11 year old girl who has a finger shoved up her parts that this is a minor inconvenience, or an 85 year old woman. Where is our country going when people think our bodies are no longer our own? I'm sorry, but if I ever have kids, I'd much rather risk the possibility of a daughter dying on an airplane than knowing some "security agent" making $10/hr in the next stall might be enjoying giving that search. I intend no disrespect, but I'm just shocked.

 

[littlmak]

I'm confused, If your X-ray gets put on the web is your name address and phone # imbeded in the screen pic to ID you specifically? Would airport screeners have the ability to post those pics? Or would this be a closed loop system?

 

[FirstFreedom]

OH Yeah! I'm the insane one!!!

What an argument you've got there! Bravo!

Just what I want......300 or so people, in addition to a terrorist, having guns on my flight!!!

Why not? This is the real issue.

Even if it's only CCWs, the probability of a mishap raises dramatically.

Really? Just like if we allow people to carry guns (CCW), the probability of a mishap raises dramatically? Just like the anti-gunners say all the time?

CCW passanger bends over to get something, gun reveals itself, terrorist sees gun, etc, etc.

Terrorist sees gun, you say? Good....he's less likely to start something then, isn't he? Even if he's suicidal, he wants to accomplish his mission. Not be stopped short (dead) before having a chance to glorify Allah. So he'll wait until a safer, more opportune time and place to go out in a blaze of glory.

If there IS a problem, do we all shoot a once, or take turns?!

Whoever is closest shoots until the threat is stopped. Not complicated.

Brilliant idea!

Thank you. But I didn't think of it. Many people smarter than me on this board and elsewhere have espoused arming qualified passengers like CCW holders, in addition to the pilot. It just makes sense. Just like arming the populace makes sense in reducing crime (and it has been so proven).

But, gratefully, it doesn't matter what you paranoid/ACLU boys want.

I find it odd that I've told you twice already in this thread that I'm not a member; yet you still say that I am.

If all that needs to be done to add ANY level of security to our travel is to MAYBE have my arse on the Internet, so be it!

Probing you anally will add ANY (some) additional level of security as well. Do you support that?

But paranoid/conspiracy types like you will always find fault in ANYTHING the gov't does.

Not anything, but most things, yes. That's because the government screws up most things they do.

So discussing it is rather a waste of time.

If you've got no argument; give up; I would too if I were you.

 

[badbob]

Don't fly, vote with your wallet. Everyone watches the front door while the back door is open. Do the people who clean, service, or stock the aircraft go through metal detectors or x-rays? If people want to subject themselves to this treatment, go for it, it's not going to effect terrorists. They will just hit somewhere else.

badbob

 

[Marko Kloos]

DasBoot,

take a chill pill. Seriously.

Closed for detrimental signal-to-noise ratio.