Pilot to TSA: 'No Groping Me and No Naked Photos'

[ConHog]

I would imagine the goal is two fold.

1. Make sure nobody secretly stashed anything on the pilot or in his luggage
2. Make sure the pilot is who he is supposed to be.

Somebody secretly stashed something on the pilot? Maybe they hid explosives in his underwear and he didn't notice?

You do realize pilots carry briefcases and such on board right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I simply don't believe your claims.

1. Side arms absolutely set off the alarms if you walk through them, t hat's why there are corridors for LEO to walk around the X ray Machines.

2. I know it happens but not 3 out of 5 times that you go to the airport do you see that kind of violation.

I spent several months working airport security after 9/11 and know at least that much.

Well, you need to spend some time at the East Terminal at Lambert.

The cops definitely walk through the metal detectors, specifically the left most machine. Even though the lights on top of the machine are lit, they never go off. Usually this machine is not manned in the morning.

And I am constantly seeing young girls setting off the magnetometers. One instance specifically comes to mind. The head of our IT dept was coming to town to set up a new scanner system. After I met him, and we were walking out, I saw this really beautiful blond coming up to the machine. I stopped and said, hey **** watch this, she's going to get frisked. Sure enough, she set off the machine, and all eyes were on her. After going over her with the wand, making sure she raised her arms well out to the sides, they found she had a thin chain around her waist. **** asked how I knew it would happen, which my reply was, "did you see her chest?""

On a personal note, on my last business trip, I was almost strip searched over a paper clip that set off the machine. I forgot that I had one in my checkbook, and the Totally Stupid Assmonkey said I would be stripped if they didn't find what was setting the machine off. After he found it, I asked if I could keep it, or if they were afraid I would clip the pilot's flight plans together.

They kept it. Must have been on the prohibited list. They missed the lighter in my pocket, though.

A paper clip did not set off one the machines. Good grief , no reason to tell crazy lies.

That would depend on how the sensitivity is set. Since I can walk into a store and find a commercial detector that can find a single coin buried a few feet down, I am pretty sure that the detectors at airports can find a small chain on a wrist. They can even be set so high that they go off for no reason at all, which would give a pervert manning a security line an excuse to frisk anyone they want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would imagine the goal is two fold.

1. Make sure nobody secretly stashed anything on the pilot or in his luggage
2. Make sure the pilot is who he is supposed to be.

Somebody secretly stashed something on the pilot? Maybe they hid explosives in his underwear and he didn't notice?

Or maybe they hid C-4 in his sneakers, and are planning to force him to light a match.

That might be it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would imagine the goal is two fold.

1. Make sure nobody secretly stashed anything on the pilot or in his luggage
2. Make sure the pilot is who he is supposed to be.

Somebody secretly stashed something on the pilot? Maybe they hid explosives in his underwear and he didn't notice?

You do realize pilots carry briefcases and such on board right?

Which is why the bags still go through screening. You, however, are attempting to justify intrusive screening for the pilots themselves, not their bags.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Well, you need to spend some time at the East Terminal at Lambert.

The cops definitely walk through the metal detectors, specifically the left most machine. Even though the lights on top of the machine are lit, they never go off. Usually this machine is not manned in the morning.

And I am constantly seeing young girls setting off the magnetometers. One instance specifically comes to mind. The head of our IT dept was coming to town to set up a new scanner system. After I met him, and we were walking out, I saw this really beautiful blond coming up to the machine. I stopped and said, hey **** watch this, she's going to get frisked. Sure enough, she set off the machine, and all eyes were on her. After going over her with the wand, making sure she raised her arms well out to the sides, they found she had a thin chain around her waist. **** asked how I knew it would happen, which my reply was, "did you see her chest?""

On a personal note, on my last business trip, I was almost strip searched over a paper clip that set off the machine. I forgot that I had one in my checkbook, and the Totally Stupid Assmonkey said I would be stripped if they didn't find what was setting the machine off. After he found it, I asked if I could keep it, or if they were afraid I would clip the pilot's flight plans together.

They kept it. Must have been on the prohibited list. They missed the lighter in my pocket, though.

A paper clip did not set off one the machines. Good grief , no reason to tell crazy lies.

That would depend on how the sensitivity is set. Since I can walk into a store and find a commercial detector that can find a single coin buried a few feet down, I am pretty sure that the detectors at airports can find a small chain on a wrist. They can even be set so high that they go off for no reason at all, which would give a pervert manning a security line an excuse to frisk anyone they want.

Although someone here will claim I am making this up, in 1998 my much better half and I took a trip to Georgetown, Grand Cayman. When we were coming back, I kept alerting on the metal detector. When the local cop used his wand, it kept hitting on my shirt pocket. The only thing I had in there was a pack of smokes.

The officer took them and passed them back and forth through the machine until his partner got the machine to stop beeping. He gave them back to me, and wished us a safe trip home.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm so confused by conservatives' objection to this. You wanted increased security. Supported the patriot act, and now the same mentality that brought about these developments is asking you to do things to make sure we are safe in the air, and you are upset about it. It seems very hypocritical to me. Which do you want? Do you want us to be protected against the terrorists, or do you want liberty, because you can't have both. Either, we hand over some of our privacy to the system so that they can screen for perpetrators of terror, or we don't, save our liberty, yet risk more air hijacks and possible attacks. That's the reality.

Further, who the fuck cares if someone behind some booth sees your naked body through some wierd device? Who cares what they think? I don't see the big deal. I'd rather be safe in the air, than care about what some asshole behind some screen thinks of me. What are they going to do? Sell you're screened images on the internet? Are they going to tell their friends about it? Ridiculous. People just love to be up in arms about the stupidest shit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I'm so confused by conservatives' objection to this. You wanted increased security. Supported the patriot act, and now the same mentality that brought about these developments is asking you to do things to make sure we are safe in the air, and you are upset about it. It seems very hypocritical to me. Which do you want? Do you want us to be protected against the terrorists, or do you want liberty, because you can't have both. Either, we hand over some of our privacy to the system so that they can screen for perpetrators of terror, or we don't, save our liberty, yet risk more air hijacks and possible attacks. That's the reality.

Further, who the fuck cares if someone behind some booth sees your naked body through some wierd device? Who cares what they think? I don't see the big deal. I'd rather be safe in the air, than care about what some asshole behind some screen thinks of me. What are they going to do? Sell you're screened images on the internet? Are they going to tell their friends about it? Ridiculous. People just love to be up in arms about the stupidest shit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Increased security is one thing. Bullshit security is another.

Do you REALLY think aircraft security is enhanced by making sure a mother can not take a sippy cup on board for her two year old? Do you think elderly people should be made to struggle out of their wheelchairs to hobble through the magnetometers? Do you think people with metal implants should have to carry 37,000 pages of proof from every single physician who ever had anything to do with their surgeries?

Let's get real, and start targeting anyone who can pose a threat to the safety and security of the flying public. Young, able bodied males strong enough to overpower cabin crews. They are the ones to watch, not Sister Bertrille, on her way to the Convent of San Tanco.

 

[Synthaholic]

I wonder if the "pilots" who flew the jetliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and the field in PA would be as honored for their refusal to go through security screening.

You might be inclined to think that THEY are different from this AIRLINE pilot. And, of course, that much is true as far as it goes.

But Major Nidal Malik Hasan was probably deemed to be pretty much above suspicion, too. Well he may have been unless the folks in charge of security (maybe) took note of his ethnicity.

So, is profiling appropriate, now?

Or, in the fight against the efforts of those who'd like to blow up another crowded passenger jet, are we required to let political correctness rule the day?

I GET why many folks object to the naked-image scanners. And maybe some other method needs to be found. But what method ISN'T going to draw the ire of guys like blu and the ACLU?

You're such a frightened little lamb.

 

[Synthaholic]

I would imagine the goal is two fold.

1. Make sure nobody secretly stashed anything on the pilot or in his luggage
2. Make sure the pilot is who he is supposed to be.

Somebody secretly stashed something on the pilot? Maybe they hid explosives in his underwear and he didn't notice?

You do realize pilots carry briefcases and such on board right?

That's why you send the briefcase through the x-ray machine.

 

[newpolitics]

I'm so confused by conservatives' objection to this. You wanted increased security. Supported the patriot act, and now the same mentality that brought about these developments is asking you to do things to make sure we are safe in the air, and you are upset about it. It seems very hypocritical to me. Which do you want? Do you want us to be protected against the terrorists, or do you want liberty, because you can't have both. Either, we hand over some of our privacy to the system so that they can screen for perpetrators of terror, or we don't, save our liberty, yet risk more air hijacks and possible attacks. That's the reality.

Further, who the fuck cares if someone behind some booth sees your naked body through some wierd device? Who cares what they think? I don't see the big deal. I'd rather be safe in the air, than care about what some asshole behind some screen thinks of me. What are they going to do? Sell you're screened images on the internet? Are they going to tell their friends about it? Ridiculous. People just love to be up in arms about the stupidest shit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Increased security is one thing. Bullshit security is another.

Do you REALLY think aircraft security is enhanced by making sure a mother can not take a sippy cup on board for her two year old? Do you think elderly people should be made to struggle out of their wheelchairs to hobble through the magnetometers? Do you think people with metal implants should have to carry 37,000 pages of proof from every single physician who ever had anything to do with their surgeries?

Let's get real, and start targeting anyone who can pose a threat to the safety and security of the flying public. Young, able bodied males strong enough to overpower cabin crews. They are the ones to watch, not Sister Bertrille, on her way to the Convent of San Tanco.

It could be anybody man. You can't profile. As ridiculous as it sounds that a grandmother may be hiding something, it's not ridiculous that someone could have coaxed her unknowingly into carrying something dangerous. I agree, it stinks for everybody, but this is what we asked for, and so we can't complain now. It's just ridiculous. Of course you are going to get stories like this, these extreme cases of ridiculousness that infuriates people and makes people think the whole system must change and that it is someone's fault, probably government, so gives them more fuel to be mad at the government, strengthening their own resolve to stick their beliefs rigidly, unable to realize that it was their wish in the first place, collectively, with everyone else, that set the wheels in motion that led to incidents like you are reading here. Take accountability for what you wished for. I don't care how bad it is. This is what we wanted. We let the beast out, now it's free and we can't control it and we are upset.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I'm so confused by conservatives' objection to this. You wanted increased security. Supported the patriot act, and now the same mentality that brought about these developments is asking you to do things to make sure we are safe in the air, and you are upset about it. It seems very hypocritical to me. Which do you want? Do you want us to be protected against the terrorists, or do you want liberty, because you can't have both. Either, we hand over some of our privacy to the system so that they can screen for perpetrators of terror, or we don't, save our liberty, yet risk more air hijacks and possible attacks. That's the reality.

Further, who the fuck cares if someone behind some booth sees your naked body through some wierd device? Who cares what they think? I don't see the big deal. I'd rather be safe in the air, than care about what some asshole behind some screen thinks of me. What are they going to do? Sell you're screened images on the internet? Are they going to tell their friends about it? Ridiculous. People just love to be up in arms about the stupidest shit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Increased security is one thing. Bullshit security is another.

Do you REALLY think aircraft security is enhanced by making sure a mother can not take a sippy cup on board for her two year old? Do you think elderly people should be made to struggle out of their wheelchairs to hobble through the magnetometers? Do you think people with metal implants should have to carry 37,000 pages of proof from every single physician who ever had anything to do with their surgeries?

Let's get real, and start targeting anyone who can pose a threat to the safety and security of the flying public. Young, able bodied males strong enough to overpower cabin crews. They are the ones to watch, not Sister Bertrille, on her way to the Convent of San Tanco.

It could be anybody man. You can't profile. As ridiculous as it sounds that a grandmother may be hiding something, it's not ridiculous that someone could have coaxed her unknowingly into carrying something dangerous. I agree, it stinks for everybody, but this is what we asked for, and so we can't complain now. It's just ridiculous. Of course you are going to get stories like this, these extreme cases of ridiculousness that infuriates people and makes people think the whole system must change and that it is someone's fault, probably government, so gives them more fuel to be mad at the government, strengthening their own resolve to stick their beliefs rigidly, unable to realize that it was their wish in the first place, collectively, with everyone else, that set the wheels in motion that led to incidents like you are reading here. Take accountability for what you wished for. I don't care how bad it is. This is what we wanted. We let the beast out, now it's free and we can't control it and we are upset.

Don't you dare claim I wanted this. Don't you dare claim I wished for this.

I don't want the elderly to be humiliated by being harassed and belittled by power hungry thugs in a uniform. I don't want handicapped children being forced through machines by tyrants on a power trip. I don't want people with artificial hips and knees being made to cough up documents proving they are not terrorists or criminals.

I want and expect security to focus on the ones who have the physical capability to take over an aircraft. Grandma in a hover-round is not going to knock down a flight attendant and bulldoze her way through the cockpit door. And I don't care how big the sippy cup is, it's not going to carry enough explosive power to blow a hole through the pressure hull of a 767.

Why in God's name are we wasting resources on the elderly, disabled and children? Let's put that horsepower to good use and scrutinize the young male passengers, like the 19 assholes that took over the planes on 911. They are the threat, not a sickly, wheelchair bound 90 year old on her way to see her family for the last time.

And I'll tell you one thing. No one on the face of this earth could coax my grandmother into doing anything SHE did not want to do.

 

[newpolitics]

Increased security is one thing. Bullshit security is another.

Do you REALLY think aircraft security is enhanced by making sure a mother can not take a sippy cup on board for her two year old? Do you think elderly people should be made to struggle out of their wheelchairs to hobble through the magnetometers? Do you think people with metal implants should have to carry 37,000 pages of proof from every single physician who ever had anything to do with their surgeries?

Let's get real, and start targeting anyone who can pose a threat to the safety and security of the flying public. Young, able bodied males strong enough to overpower cabin crews. They are the ones to watch, not Sister Bertrille, on her way to the Convent of San Tanco.

It could be anybody man. You can't profile. As ridiculous as it sounds that a grandmother may be hiding something, it's not ridiculous that someone could have coaxed her unknowingly into carrying something dangerous. I agree, it stinks for everybody, but this is what we asked for, and so we can't complain now. It's just ridiculous. Of course you are going to get stories like this, these extreme cases of ridiculousness that infuriates people and makes people think the whole system must change and that it is someone's fault, probably government, so gives them more fuel to be mad at the government, strengthening their own resolve to stick their beliefs rigidly, unable to realize that it was their wish in the first place, collectively, with everyone else, that set the wheels in motion that led to incidents like you are reading here. Take accountability for what you wished for. I don't care how bad it is. This is what we wanted. We let the beast out, now it's free and we can't control it and we are upset.

Don't you dare claim I wanted this. Don't you dare claim I wished for this.

I don't want the elderly to be humiliated by being harassed and belittled by power hungry thugs in a uniform. I don't want handicapped children being forced through machines by tyrants on a power trip. I don't want people with artificial hips and knees being made to cough up documents proving they are not terrorists or criminals.

I want and expect security to focus on the ones who have the physical capability to take over an aircraft. Grandma in a hover-round is not going to knock down a flight attendant and bulldoze her way through the cockpit door. And I don't care how big the sippy cup is, it's not going to carry enough explosive power to blow a hole through the pressure hull of a 767.

Why in God's name are we wasting resources on the elderly, disabled and children? Let's put that horsepower to good use and scrutinize the young male passengers, like the 19 assholes that took over the planes on 911. They are the threat, not a sickly, wheelchair bound 90 year old on her way to see her family for the last time.

And I'll tell you one thing. No one on the face of this earth could coax my grandmother into doing anything SHE did not want to do.

The devil is in the details. You did ask for this, perhaps not specifically for your grandmother to be thrown through an x-ray machine, but you asked for patriot act, a lessening of our liberty, having been handed over to our government to insure our safety as they saw fit, inadvertently giving a security on a power trip the right to do what he wants. I don't see how you can be so naiive about this. Acceptance bro, it's a powerful tool in getting rid of anger and regret.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

It could be anybody man. You can't profile. As ridiculous as it sounds that a grandmother may be hiding something, it's not ridiculous that someone could have coaxed her unknowingly into carrying something dangerous. I agree, it stinks for everybody, but this is what we asked for, and so we can't complain now. It's just ridiculous. Of course you are going to get stories like this, these extreme cases of ridiculousness that infuriates people and makes people think the whole system must change and that it is someone's fault, probably government, so gives them more fuel to be mad at the government, strengthening their own resolve to stick their beliefs rigidly, unable to realize that it was their wish in the first place, collectively, with everyone else, that set the wheels in motion that led to incidents like you are reading here. Take accountability for what you wished for. I don't care how bad it is. This is what we wanted. We let the beast out, now it's free and we can't control it and we are upset.

Don't you dare claim I wanted this. Don't you dare claim I wished for this.

I don't want the elderly to be humiliated by being harassed and belittled by power hungry thugs in a uniform. I don't want handicapped children being forced through machines by tyrants on a power trip. I don't want people with artificial hips and knees being made to cough up documents proving they are not terrorists or criminals.

I want and expect security to focus on the ones who have the physical capability to take over an aircraft. Grandma in a hover-round is not going to knock down a flight attendant and bulldoze her way through the cockpit door. And I don't care how big the sippy cup is, it's not going to carry enough explosive power to blow a hole through the pressure hull of a 767.

Why in God's name are we wasting resources on the elderly, disabled and children? Let's put that horsepower to good use and scrutinize the young male passengers, like the 19 assholes that took over the planes on 911. They are the threat, not a sickly, wheelchair bound 90 year old on her way to see her family for the last time.

And I'll tell you one thing. No one on the face of this earth could coax my grandmother into doing anything SHE did not want to do.

The devil is in the details. You did ask for this, perhaps not specifically for your grandmother to be thrown through an x-ray machine, but you asked for patriot act, a lessening of our liberty, having been handed over to our government to insure our safety as they saw fit, inadvertently giving a security on a power trip the right to do what he wants. I don't see how you can be so naiive about this. Acceptance bro, it's a powerful tool in getting rid of anger and regret.

No sorry, Tardpolitics, I did NOT ask for this. I never asked for the Patriot Act. I never asked for American citizens to be treated as criminals. I never asked for children, elderly, or disabled Americans to be deemed guilty until proven innocent. I never asked to be treated like like I had to prove I wasn't up to something.

In a perfect world, we could go back to the days before those 19 rag headed jag offs ruined it for the rest of us. I liked it when I could leave the secure airside area and go out for a smoke, then show my ticket at the metal detector to get back in. Now you have to get completely undressed, and get X-rayed until you're sterile to even get the privilege to be bumped from a flight.

That's why I've adopted the 12 hour rule. If I can drive it in 12 hours or less, fuck air travel. Let the airlines choke on it, until they demand that TSA back off and treat us like humans, instead of a pack of criminals intent on blowing up each and every airliner on a daily basis.

If it takes more than 12 hours, I don't need to go there. Again, fuck TSA and Homeland Security

 

[Douger]

I wonder if the "pilots" who flew the jetliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and the field in PA would be as honored for their refusal to go through security screening.

You might be inclined to think that THEY are different from this AIRLINE pilot. And, of course, that much is true as far as it goes.

But Major Nidal Malik Hasan was probably deemed to be pretty much above suspicion, too. Well he may have been unless the folks in charge of security (maybe) took note of his ethnicity.

So, is profiling appropriate, now?

Or, in the fight against the efforts of those who'd like to blow up another crowded passenger jet, are we required to let political correctness rule the day?

I GET why many folks object to the naked-image scanners. And maybe some other method needs to be found. But what method ISN'T going to draw the ire of guys like blu and the ACLU?

Those planes were hijacked. It wasn't the airline pilots who flew the planes into the WTC, it was the hijackers.

Yeah. They overtook over a hundred murkins with a fucking box cutter.
"home of duh brave"
Get real.

 

[Toome]

I thought I said that. My question is, what makes those filters fool proof? We have already seen that the safeguards against storing the images are not all that safe. Then we have seen cell phone pics of screen pics that show more than the government says they show. You expect me to believe that these low resolution of filtered imageas are enhanced, and then degraded again, in order to make the images show more than they actually do. I prefer to apply Occam's Razor and believe the simpler explanation, that people are lying to me. It isn't like the government has never lied to me before.

We may be going round in circles, so I'll clarify:

1. The original field tested models DID reveal more than what was expected. The manufacturers went back to the drawing board and developed something that was not so revealing and had added privacy filters built in.

2. The models that were deployed this summer were the ones with the filters built in. Additional security features prevent the ability to electronically save images to a hard drive, disk, thumb drive or any other storage system.

3. The images themselves are not revealing. They are no more revealing than family photos at the beach. You can choose to not believe that, but I've worked with these specific systems before as part of another type of security program; these are the exact same models and I frankly don't know what the big deal is. What is impressive is that you can detect non-metallic items such as wads of paper, metallic items as small as a pendant, medical implants and other similar artificial objects.

4. It all boils down to operator attentiveness and vigilance, but these systems are pretty good. As for the professionalism of the operators, I guess there's always a percentage in any population of folks who misbehave. I think it's disingenuous to assume the majority of operators are horny little perverts and deviants. It would take a pretty imaginative mind to get any sort of sexual pleasure from these images. In fact, I'd say that it will have the opposite effect along the same lines as the nurse or physician's assistant who tend to be desensitized about the human body. But there's always at least one person in the crowd who gets his jollies masturbating over something as mundane as a spiked high heel shoe, and I imagine that there's probably one or two such people in all the ranks of TSA. There's no way to tell what's a fetish for one person and what's not for another.

 

[Toome]

2. You're wrong. The pilot is expected to conduct himself in a professional manner. He clearly did not. While I don't disagree that pilots ought to be given special consideration, there's a right way to go about it and a wrong way to go about. This pilot essentially threw a temper tantrum at the checkpoint and then threw a cyber tantrum with his little blog. Pretty unprofessional conduct in my book, especially with his unfounded fears about the imaging technology being posted as if they had any credibility at all. In the end, this pilot will have to live with the resultant fear he managed to stir up.

This is where I get confused. Why is it unprofessional to assert your civil rights? If he insulted the officers you might be able to claim he was unprofessional, but simply refusing to comply with inane directives is not something I would call unprofessional. Maybe that is because I am not brainwashed into thinking the government is always right.

I happen to agree with the pilot that he should not have to undergo screening. I happen to believe that pilots (NOT flight attendants, maintenance personnel or other aircraft operator employees) should be exempt from general screening procedures as long as there's another way of verifying their identification (biometric screening, coded pass and badge system, etc.---something more than just an ID card).

The professional thing to do would have been to submit a complaint through either his airline station manager or other similar channel so that he could get the support of his and other airlines so that they speak with one voice when they complain to TSA. But by posting what amounts to uninformed opinions on a blog, he's doing the exact opposite by spreading fear about the reliability of these systems, professionalism of the operators who view these images and validity of airport security screening. He's using his position as a pilot to criticize these programs without having really done any valid research. His opinions get instant credibility because he's a pilot even though his information is inaccurate. He's also using emotions to make his point rather than fact.

TSA isn't exactly blameless in this. I don't know why TSA didn't launch some sort of information campaign, at least with the airlines, to avoid last minute surprises at the checkpoint so that pilots would be prepared for the new procedures.

The pilot is a crybaby. And I'm frankly surprised why others support his position. No matter how this turns out, the bottom line is that pilots (and flight crew) believe that they don't have to undergo the same level of screening that you and I have to undergo. They don't even have to take off their shoes, whereas you and I must. They don't care about "our" civil rights; they only care about their convenience. You and I must show up at the airport at least two hours early so that we can park the car, check in our luggage, get through security and hopefully get a bite to eat before we board the plane. Flight crews show up at the airport somewhere around 30 minutes before the flight and fully expect to be able to cut in front of the line and be expedited through security. Re-read the pilot's comments. He's NOT saying "why is this happening to us?", he's saying "why is this happening to ME!"

 

[xotoxi]

It's important to show the TSA your penis, otherwise the Terrorists win.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=650dskq-wHU[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

Was this Pilot scheduled to actually pilot a plane? Seems to me he was going to be a passenger. If he was to be in the cockpit then he should have been fired.

As a passenger he should have gone through security same as anyone else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm so confused by conservatives' objection to this. You wanted increased security. Supported the patriot act, and now the same mentality that brought about these developments is asking you to do things to make sure we are safe in the air, and you are upset about it. It seems very hypocritical to me. Which do you want? Do you want us to be protected against the terrorists, or do you want liberty, because you can't have both. Either, we hand over some of our privacy to the system so that they can screen for perpetrators of terror, or we don't, save our liberty, yet risk more air hijacks and possible attacks. That's the reality.

Further, who the fuck cares if someone behind some booth sees your naked body through some wierd device? Who cares what they think? I don't see the big deal. I'd rather be safe in the air, than care about what some asshole behind some screen thinks of me. What are they going to do? Sell you're screened images on the internet? Are they going to tell their friends about it? Ridiculous. People just love to be up in arms about the stupidest shit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Point one. I am not a conservative. If I were I would be happy to allow the state more power in order to keep me safe.

Point 2, this doesn't make anyone safer.

They won’t actually catch that many threats. According to a spokesperson for QinetiQ, another body scanner manufacturer, airport body scanners would be “unlikely” to detect many of the explosive devices used by terrorist groups [BBC News]. QinetiQ said the technology probably wouldn’t have detected the Christmas day underwear bomb. Neither would the scanners have caught the explosives from the 2006 airliner liquid bomb plot, nor the explosives used in the 2005 London Tube train bombing. The body scanners aren’t very useful for detecting liquids and plastics and can only help spotlight irregularities under a person’s clothes, said the spokesperson. Singling out every irregularity for further screening will place a heavy burden on airport security (read: bring a pillow with you to the airport).

5 Reasons Body Scanners May Not Solve Our Terrorism Problem | 80beats | Discover Magazine

What is the point of deploying scanners to scan under clothes that will not pick up the explosives they are scanning for?

Since it is a waste of time, and money, I prefer to keep my privacy. Even if it wasn't, my privacy is just as important as my safety to me. I do not need idiots who work for the government telling me which is more important.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It could be anybody man. You can't profile. As ridiculous as it sounds that a grandmother may be hiding something, it's not ridiculous that someone could have coaxed her unknowingly into carrying something dangerous. I agree, it stinks for everybody, but this is what we asked for, and so we can't complain now. It's just ridiculous. Of course you are going to get stories like this, these extreme cases of ridiculousness that infuriates people and makes people think the whole system must change and that it is someone's fault, probably government, so gives them more fuel to be mad at the government, strengthening their own resolve to stick their beliefs rigidly, unable to realize that it was their wish in the first place, collectively, with everyone else, that set the wheels in motion that led to incidents like you are reading here. Take accountability for what you wished for. I don't care how bad it is. This is what we wanted. We let the beast out, now it's free and we can't control it and we are upset.

We who? No one ever asked me about it, so we must apply to someone else.