Full-body scanners at the airport

[Rich Boy Rob]

I think they are necessary. I don't really think they are an invasion privacy, after all they are only going to be looking for things that shouldn't be there and they are hardly going to be hiring registered sex offenders to run them. Simple answer, don't shove knives and bombs in your pants.

Wouldn't a simpler way be for everyone to go by sea not air? It's more environmentally friendly and there's not really any chance of someone killing everyone on it like there is with air travell.

True, but would it really be worth it (or even more environmentally friendly if you think about it) if you turned an already 21 hour flight from London to Sydney into a ferry ride that would take literally days?

 

[Rogue planet]

Have you ever read 1984? So if the government decided to put cameras in everyones homes to help combat terrorism, by your logic it would be fine with you because you have "nothing to hide"? Its all about the principle, im getting really sick and tired of particularly the UK and US governments eroding our rights and freedoms all in the name of counter terrorism.

I have actually. I hardly see how a quick scan at an airport can be compared to a totalitarian government monitoring each action of every single citizen. You might want to reread that novel yourself and compare it to reality, maybe you'll see that we really don't have it that bad at all.
It's easy for you to say they're taking away our "rights and freedoms" but the only thing that's really being taken away is a few moments of our time.

The threat of terrorism is rediculously overblown anyway. Seriously your far more likely to be killed just crossing a road than you are by a terrorist attack.

Ridiculously*
The difference there is, being hit by a car whilst crossing the road is the result of an accident, accidents can't be foreseen and not much can be done to prevent them. Terrorists are mass murderers that can be stopped.

 

[Feign]

Ridiculously*
The difference there is, being hit by a car whilst crossing the road is the result of an accident, accidents can't be foreseen and not much can be done to prevent them. Terrorists are mass murderers that can be stopped.

In that same way though, car accidents might not be foreseen, but they obviously take steps to prevent or at least make them less worse...

Terrorist attacks can also be prevented, not by airport security but with proper communication...

 

[Rogue planet]

In that same way though, car accidents might not be foreseen, but they obviously take steps to prevent or at least make them less worse...

Of course, but that's a whole different matter. It just seemed silly to be comparing the number of deaths resulting from terrorist attacks to the number of deaths that result from road accidents. I could say that it's more likely someone could die from a certain disease, but it doesn't really relate to terrorism or this discussion at all.

 

[Peeky Chew]

I think they are necessary. I don't really think they are an invasion privacy, after all they are only going to be looking for things that shouldn't be there and they are hardly going to be hiring registered sex offenders to run them. Simple answer, don't shove knives and bombs in your pants.



True, but would it really be worth it (or even more environmentally friendly if you think about it) if you turned an already 21 hour flight from London to Sydney into a ferry ride that would take literally days?

Well the largest cruise ship in the world can carry 5400 passengers and, say it was travelling from Southampton in England to New york it would take 131 hours. The largest passengers plane in the world can carry 471 passengers and takes 6 hours on the same route. So in the time it takes for the ship to get there nearly 13659 planes worth of passengers can have traveled there. Of course 29 planes take a lot of fuel. So for the same amount of passengers to travel by plane as by sea it would take 11 planes. Which I'm guessing is more petrol than the boat.

 

[Esper]

The funny thing is... if another attack happened, by the same radical people... What then will people do?

Wouldn't it seem more logical though to pat down someone that is from the middle east or has middle east dissent (or anyone from that area), then a little old white lady? Sure it may seem racist, and the way they have it now, is done for an equal measure... But while it may not be the fault of the people either from or heritage of the middle east and area, that they can't help that others of similar dissent believe in something different.

Don't forget that religious zealots come in all colors. At least in America I wouldn't be surprised if some Christian fundamentalist fringe group tried something, especially when an unbelievably large number of Americans (well, it's not that large, but it's still baffling) believe Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist and all sorts of crazy things.

I dunno. Aren't all these shootings in the past few years terrorist attacks? There's no overarching group directing them, so we like to think of them as unrelated, but it's really not that different from your standard Islamic fundamentalist terrorist: someone who feels persecuted and is crazy enough to think that killing a bunch of people will make things better. You just can't predict who is going to be a terrorist just by what they look like or where they are from.

 

[Fox♠]

Iron Maiden;
I'm sorry but are you actually comparing a novel about a horrific level of surveillance, totalitarianism and fascism that was written just after ww2 and clearly heavily based on the fascism that covered Europe at the time to having full body scans at airports just weeks after an attempted terrorist attack, among other 'infringements' of our rights? I'm well and truly gobsmacked. I understand full well that there's a fair few too many cctv cameras in the UK, alongside intrusive councilors, however to even for one second liken that to Big Brother is ridiculous.

 

[Feign]

Don't forget that religious zealots come in all colors. At least in America I wouldn't be surprised if some Christian fundamentalist fringe group tried something, especially when an unbelievably large number of Americans (well, it's not that large, but it's still baffling) believe Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist and all sorts of crazy things.

I dunno. Aren't all these shootings in the past few years terrorist attacks? There's no overarching group directing them, so we like to think of them as unrelated, but it's really not that different from your standard Islamic fundamentalist terrorist: someone who feels persecuted and is crazy enough to think that killing a bunch of people will make things better. You just can't predict who is going to be a terrorist just by what they look like or where they are from.

I'm not too sure if those in question, feel persecuted anymore, or are just following orders as a result of being brainwashed/indoctrinated... :S

Lol... soon we'll have some kind of brain scanner that will even out perform the lie detector test XD

People are selfish though... Those that want to provoke others... etc...

 

[Rabbit]

Hmm...

You think the threat of terrorism is overblown? So what would you like them to do? Throw away all of the security and cameras? So that way the next time you ride a plane someone blows it up and you, as well as everyone else on that plane, dies? If you don't know, we're at war. Thousands have already died due to terrorist attacks.

Have you ever considered how the phrase 'The War on Terrorism' has affected people's ideas about terrorism? Terrorism is a concept, not an entity. You can't really wage war against it the way you can against organizations or states.

Wouldn't it seem more logical though to pat down someone that is from the middle east or has middle east dissent (or anyone from that area), then a little old white lady? Sure it may seem racist, and the way they have it now, is done for an equal measure... But while it may not be the fault of the people either from or heritage of the middle east and area, that they can't help that others of similar dissent believe in something different.

Your phrasing is kind of confusing...if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that racial profiling is justifiable? But aren't airplane passengers all treated equally anyways, aside from the screening that is done 'behind the scenes'?

I heard a story from a guy who couldn't get into the US from Canada. He has a Malaysian passport, and the passport says he's Muslim (that being the official religion in Malaysia). I think that's just ridiculous. You have to balance 'screening of suspicious people' with 'not ticking everyone off'.

Wouldn't a simpler way be for everyone to go by sea not air? It's more environmentally friendly and there's not really any chance of someone killing everyone on it like there is with air travell.

Are you suggesting a ban on air travel, or what? Ships may consume less fuel than airplanes, making them more eco-friendly in that regard, but sea trips take much more time, time few people can afford to spare. And I don't think you're right when you say that terrorists can't kill everyone on a ship. It wouldn't be too difficult. Just plant a bomb in the engine room.

What about the medical dangers of getting scanned every time you get on a plane? Isn't there a risk of cancer every time you get x-rayed?

 

[Esper]

What about the medical dangers of getting scanned every time you get on a plane? Isn't there a risk of cancer every time you get x-rayed?

I was just browsing an article today about this. It said that new scanners used some kind of ionizing something or other which is ever so slightly more unhealthy than whatever kind has been in use until now. It also said it was a tiny fraction of what you get from an x-ray at the dentist.

 

[Feign]

Lol... Maybe people should just be knocked out (with some kind of gas) whilst in the air, would solve quite a few problems...

 

[Neko]

Originally posted by Rabbit
Have you ever considered how the phrase 'The War on Terrorism' has affected people's ideas about terrorism? Terrorism is a concept, not an entity. You can't really wage war against it the way you can against organizations or states.

I agree, you can't wage war against a non-tangible threat. Terrorism is used to basically scare others, but even though you can't wage war against it itself, people here can still try to protect themselves and prepare in case of another attack, and that's exactly what they're doing. If someone says the "threat of terrorism is overblown", that's saying to me that they think people are not taking this lightly enough and that all of the measures they are taking are too much, which I disagree with (as long as the measures they are taking are helping, not just hurting of wasting more money); better safe, than sorry, in a way, right?

Originally posted by Feign
Lol... Maybe people should just be knocked out (with some kind of gas) whilst in the air, would solve quite a few problems...

Lol but you're forgetting that many more problems would be caused, overriding the ones it solved. :P

 

[Peeky Chew]

Are you suggesting a ban on air travel, or what? Ships may consume less fuel than airplanes, making them more eco-friendly in that regard, but sea trips take much more time, time few people can afford to spare. And I don't think you're right when you say that terrorists can't kill everyone on a ship. It wouldn't be too difficult. Just plant a bomb in the engine room.

So what do you do when you get there? I'm pretty sure even if you managed to explode the engine with some sort of bomb you wouldn't create an explosion 1200 feet in diameter. And yes, I am suggesting a ban on normal commercial flights. People only need to get to places fast because they can fly, I'm pretty sure your boss would no longer expect you to get to the other side of the planet in 2 days if there wasn't air travel.

 

[Iron Maiden]

I have actually. I hardly see how a quick scan at an airport can be compared to a totalitarian government monitoring each action of every single citizen. You might want to reread that novel yourself and compare it to reality, maybe you'll see that we really don't have it that bad at all.
It's easy for you to say they're taking away our "rights and freedoms" but the only thing that's really being taken away is a few moments of our time.

Ridiculously*
The difference there is, being hit by a car whilst crossing the road is the result of an accident, accidents can't be foreseen and not much can be done to prevent them. Terrorists are mass murderers that can be stopped.

Im sorry, i didnt come across right. Im wasnt really talking about the scanners per-se. And im not saying we are at "1984" yet. What i meant was, having an "i have nothing to hide so i have nothing to fear" mentality, could potentially leave you open to a whole host of invasive government policies.

Yes there needs you be a certain level of security to fight terrorism, and i do actually think that these new scanners could make flying safer. But you need to draw the line somewhere though, for the sake of liberty (if we do become an authoritarian state just to fight terrorism, then they have won because that is the sort of world they want), and because at the end of the day no amount of surviellance or security measures will stop terrorists, they will always find ways of hurting people.

I believe the only way to stop terrorism is to find a diplomatic solution. Unfortunately at the moment we are stuck in this idiotic mentality of "we dont negotiate with terrorists, lets just bomb them back". ********, this "War on Terror" will never work because it only provokes retaliation. Remember, the Irish Republican Army only began to lay down its weapons when we stopped just simply fighting them back and actually started talking to them.

 

[Neko]

Originally posted by Peeky Chew
So what do you do when you get there? I'm pretty sure even if you managed to explode the engine with some sort of bomb you wouldn't create an explosion 1200 feet in diameter. And yes, I am suggesting a ban on normal commercial flights. People only need to get to places fast because they can fly, I'm pretty sure your boss would no longer expect you to get to the other side of the planet in 2 days if there wasn't air travel.

Uh, no. For one, you can't just ban something just because it could potentially poise a threat to others. I'd have to agree with the other poster, in that you could just as easily sneak something in a ship and harm people that way as well. Hell, if you think about it, there are MANY conveniences out there that could be harmful or dangerous for us, and you may ask "Why do we have them?" Well, simple; because they are convenient for us; and in this case I think the conveniences outweigh the dangers ten fold. Have you actually stopped to think how much more difficult life would be without planes?? Think of the time it would take to visit friends or family that lived halfway across the world. Wanted to plan a vacation in Japan? Too bad. You can't because the time it took to get there used up all of the vacation time in which you were given. Oh, and how about planning a funeral, hm? How can you possibly transport a friend/loved one on a boat to the desired place of their burial? Say you lived in New York and they are to be buried in oh, say, California? Lol well that's just too damn bad because the time and money it would take if commercial airflight did not exist is far more than any normal working class family could ever afford. Oh, and one last thing; what would you do today if you lived in New York and your parents, who live in.. let's say, Montana, have been in a terrible accident and lay in the hospital dieing, with the doctors saying they only have days to live? Would you drive all the way there, only to find it's too late? Because it took days alone to drive there?

No. Just.. no. I honestly don't think getting rid of commercial air flight would ever solve anything. The consequences would outweigh the good, there will most likely be riots caused, etc. That's the whole reason why there IS security and such; to protect us and make our conveniences less a hazard.

 

[Anti-Hero]

Oh noes! Where I will hide all my monies?!

It does a seem a little invasive. But, no one really knows how it will turn out until it is tried. So, they need to try something.

 

[snap12]

Lol... Maybe people should just be knocked out (with some kind of gas) whilst in the air, would solve quite a few problems...

As ridiculous as it sounds, I always thought that was a very good idea. If flying is sooo important for people that they risk their lives every time they fly, I think they should gladly incapacitate themselves. Obviously, this would never work because people wouldnt want to be on a flight totally defenseless and asleep, but in a perfect world?....

My other brilliant idea is that everyone should own their own personal, small airplanes! haha, I know that sounds crazy but think about it. Like any new technology that comes out starting very expensive, airplanes will soon be very cheap to manufacture. You could go in on a airplane and share the cost with your family members, friends, or your business could own a small plane or two. If you trust everyone on the airplane, what have you got to lose?

It would create a ton of jobs for people to make planes, and pilots would have more job options, rather than just hauling luggage around.

Of course, we are decades away from even small, 10 passenger airplanes (with no fancy features mind you) being anywhere near affordable, and Public air transportation should still be allowed for people that need it financially, but it would be a nice option to own a plane much like we own cars today. (Im not even gonna get started about the fuel prices :()

 

[ÇyänïdëÉX]

I think this is not the answer. There are probably other methods because terrorist knowing this would not even think to be stupid enough to conceal obvious explosive material on their body. Its just a movement to say "hey look we are stepping up security so don't worry". In my opinion there might be other ways of detecting these types of things but i think they should stop making the mistake of not checking on people who have obvious terrorist tendencies because its just pathetic how you always hear in the news "the government already had evidence that linked the man to a terrorist group but they failed too acknowledge it". Unfortunately they wont take it serious until another tragedy happens. Thats life i guess, we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past.

 

[Peeky Chew]

Uh, no. For one, you can't just ban something just because it could potentially poise a threat to others. I'd have to agree with the other poster, in that you could just as easily sneak something in a ship and harm people that way as well. Hell, if you think about it, there are MANY conveniences out there that could be harmful or dangerous for us, and you may ask "Why do we have them?" Well, simple; because they are convenient for us; and in this case I think the conveniences outweigh the dangers ten fold. Have you actually stopped to think how much more difficult life would be without planes?? Think of the time it would take to visit friends or family that lived halfway across the world. Wanted to plan a vacation in Japan? Too bad. You can't because the time it took to get there used up all of the vacation time in which you were given. Oh, and how about planning a funeral, hm? How can you possibly transport a friend/loved one on a boat to the desired place of their burial? Say you lived in New York and they are to be buried in oh, say, California? Lol well that's just too damn bad because the time and money it would take if commercial airflight did not exist is far more than any normal working class family could ever afford. Oh, and one last thing; what would you do today if you lived in New York and your parents, who live in.. let's say, Montana, have been in a terrible accident and lay in the hospital dieing, with the doctors saying they only have days to live? Would you drive all the way there, only to find it's too late? Because it took days alone to drive there?

No. Just.. no. I honestly don't think getting rid of commercial air flight would ever solve anything. The consequences would outweigh the good, there will most likely be riots caused, etc. That's the whole reason why there IS security and such; to protect us and make our conveniences less a hazard.

Well actually in a modern cruise ship it only takes 6 days to get half the way around the planet. And it would cost a lot less too.

 

[♣Gawain♣]

At least we got some before flight security, unless you want to prefer no security at all. I don't want to rant about this but, it's better to have that than nothing.

Although the invasion of privacy issue worries me.