Stop TSA Scanners(stoptsascanners.blogspot.com)
stoptsascanners.blogspot.com
Stop TSA Scanners
http://stoptsascanners.blogspot.com/
5 comments
Forget about being seen naked. The bigger issue is that it's all security theater and does little to actually make us safer, yet it costs us an extraordinary amount in cost and lost time.
does little to actually make us safer
Evidence? (or reasoning)
Evidence? (or reasoning)
Why was this downvoted?
See dalke's reply to me below for an actual response:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1852670
See dalke's reply to me below for an actual response:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1852670
If you have the technology to make a bomb, just take it somewhere else crowded that's less defended. Or do something like the D.C. sniper did years ago.
If you calculate the lost man hours of productivity on airport security, we're getting killed everyday.
There are definitely ways to avoid this, but it's probably best discussed outside this forum.
If you calculate the lost man hours of productivity on airport security, we're getting killed everyday.
There are definitely ways to avoid this, but it's probably best discussed outside this forum.
In the first millennium there was no airport security and a large number of Viking raids on Britain.
In the second millennium airport security was introduced and many fewer viking raids took place
In this millennium with greatly increased airport security there have been no viking raids on any part of the British isles.
In the second millennium airport security was introduced and many fewer viking raids took place
In this millennium with greatly increased airport security there have been no viking raids on any part of the British isles.
Good thing the Vikings didn't use the Thai solar calendar else they would have completely avoided airport security.
I agree with your point that there is no evidence to suggest it makes us even a little bit safer.
If they had caught a bunch of people, don't you think they'd be singing their praises from the rooftops?
At least they don't take away our clothes and make us wear orange jump suits for the duration of the flight - yet.
I really don't get it. Can someone explain what is wrong with body scanners?
I just see people embarrassed at having body parts, which is absurd. Everyone looks approximately the same, and it's not like photos of your junk are being sent to your coworkers.
I just see people embarrassed at having body parts, which is absurd. Everyone looks approximately the same, and it's not like photos of your junk are being sent to your coworkers.
1) mechanics, cleaning crew, and other people who have direct access to the planes do not need to go through security - it's only places visible to passengers where this is done. After all, airplanes are used to smuggle drugs, so the same process can be used to secrete a bomb.
2) additional security and screening costs money, time, and our patience, but there's no evidence that it's effective. A GAO report points out that the TSA expedited purchasing of the full-body scanners without doing anything to ensure it would be better than the existing system. It was done in part as a reaction to the attempted bombing of 25 Dec 2009, but without evidence that the machines would be effective against a repeat of that attack. I also recall a report (perhaps 5 years ago?) saying that penetration testing of post-9/11 security was as easy as pre-9/11 despite the attempts by the TSA at improving it.
3) Another GAO reports highlights that the TSA has done no evaluation of how to improve overall security. For example, a bomb set off in the waiting lines of densely packed airport security, or in Penn Station, would also have a chilling effect on our travel. This attack was done already against El Al's ticket booth in LA. Or consider the hijacking of CanJet Flight 918 where an armed gunman forced his way through security and got on board an airline preparing for takeoff - when the pilots are present but before the doors are secured. Full-body scanners do nothing against this attack.
4) As the GAO and others have reported, people can still smuggle things in their body. These are not detectable by the full-body scanners. With enough people in collusion, that is sufficient to get the parts for a bomb through security.
If it's impossible to keep drugs out of prison, with 24-hour observation and multiple levels of walls and barriers, it's not going to be possible to keep a bomb or weapon out of a plane. The goal is to reduce the likelihood, but there's no evidence that the full-body scanners make a real difference. Instead, they waste money, waste time, waste patience, and inure travelers to yet more intrusions on their personal life.
Therefore my annoyance comes from being told to do things which are meaningless and ineffective, and perhaps even detrimental to overall security.
2) additional security and screening costs money, time, and our patience, but there's no evidence that it's effective. A GAO report points out that the TSA expedited purchasing of the full-body scanners without doing anything to ensure it would be better than the existing system. It was done in part as a reaction to the attempted bombing of 25 Dec 2009, but without evidence that the machines would be effective against a repeat of that attack. I also recall a report (perhaps 5 years ago?) saying that penetration testing of post-9/11 security was as easy as pre-9/11 despite the attempts by the TSA at improving it.
3) Another GAO reports highlights that the TSA has done no evaluation of how to improve overall security. For example, a bomb set off in the waiting lines of densely packed airport security, or in Penn Station, would also have a chilling effect on our travel. This attack was done already against El Al's ticket booth in LA. Or consider the hijacking of CanJet Flight 918 where an armed gunman forced his way through security and got on board an airline preparing for takeoff - when the pilots are present but before the doors are secured. Full-body scanners do nothing against this attack.
4) As the GAO and others have reported, people can still smuggle things in their body. These are not detectable by the full-body scanners. With enough people in collusion, that is sufficient to get the parts for a bomb through security.
If it's impossible to keep drugs out of prison, with 24-hour observation and multiple levels of walls and barriers, it's not going to be possible to keep a bomb or weapon out of a plane. The goal is to reduce the likelihood, but there's no evidence that the full-body scanners make a real difference. Instead, they waste money, waste time, waste patience, and inure travelers to yet more intrusions on their personal life.
Therefore my annoyance comes from being told to do things which are meaningless and ineffective, and perhaps even detrimental to overall security.
This was the type of answer I was hoping for, thanks.
Some of what you referenced and further reading here:
http://www.gao.gov/search?search_type=Solr+(Beta+1.0)&o=...
Some of what you referenced and further reading here:
http://www.gao.gov/search?search_type=Solr+(Beta+1.0)&o=...
I get it. You, like too many, think genitals are 'junk'. I am not ashamed of my body. I value my body and want to share it only with those I choose, not indiscriminately, and certainly not as a condition for flying.
Forced or coerced nudity has been used as a weapon because it represents a one-way power transfer.
Forced or coerced nudity has been used as a weapon because it represents a one-way power transfer.
"Junk: Penis and testacles." [sic] [1]
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=junk (NSFW) (definition 2)
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=junk (NSFW) (definition 2)
My point.
Even accepting genitalia as a sacred artifact, I have to raise an eyebrow at your definition of 'sharing'. I regularly have the testicles of my neighbor's dog in my view but I wouldn't say that he's sharing his body with me.
Furthermore I fail to see exactly what concrete harm is being done that justifies your calling body scanners a weapon.
Furthermore I fail to see exactly what concrete harm is being done that justifies your calling body scanners a weapon.
Would you be okay with strip searches as a requirement for flying, and if not, is it only the time and inconvenience that would bother you, or something else?
The inconvenience of having to undress would annoy me, as do having to take off my shoes and put my luggage through a machine.
I would only be annoyed for reasons other than inconvenience if the contact is unprofessional. Assuming that it's not, and everyone else is doing the same, I wouldn't feel like I was being violated.
My basic point is that the liberty being infringed upon by these scanners (i.e. liberty to hide your genitals from people) is frivolous. So I'm asking for other reasons that these should be disallowed. This seems to be a very unpopular point of view for some reason.
I would only be annoyed for reasons other than inconvenience if the contact is unprofessional. Assuming that it's not, and everyone else is doing the same, I wouldn't feel like I was being violated.
My basic point is that the liberty being infringed upon by these scanners (i.e. liberty to hide your genitals from people) is frivolous. So I'm asking for other reasons that these should be disallowed. This seems to be a very unpopular point of view for some reason.
Now what if they were asking the same of your daughter?
In the case of strip searches, if she's young I would object because I don't want her growing up thinking strangers touching her naked is acceptable in general. I would require some level of maturity first to be able to understand the moral difference between a strip search performed by a TSA officer on duty and one performed by her 4th grade teacher.
In the case of scanners, under the same assumption of completely professional conduct, I see no problem. She would probably be more emotionally scarred by a visit to the doctor.
Kids generally don't have any problem running around naked. It's the adults that feel self-conscious.
In the case of scanners, under the same assumption of completely professional conduct, I see no problem. She would probably be more emotionally scarred by a visit to the doctor.
Kids generally don't have any problem running around naked. It's the adults that feel self-conscious.
You've very obviously never been strip-searched.
It's not about embarrassment. It's about my right to be in control of my person, and to not be bombarded with unnecessary radiation (of any amount). And it's about power and control.
You have every right not to fly. So it's not about power and control.
If I can drive to my destination within about 10 to 12 hours then I'll avoid flying. I'm a pilot and love aviation, so this is a real downer for me.
And BTW, here in SoCal we can't drive anywhere without encountering those interior "border" checkpoints, where the CBP guards do all they can to routinely circumvent the 4th. Just like TSA.
And please tell me what it is about! Security???
And BTW, here in SoCal we can't drive anywhere without encountering those interior "border" checkpoints, where the CBP guards do all they can to routinely circumvent the 4th. Just like TSA.
And please tell me what it is about! Security???
Security???
Yes, I think that's the point. Or politics if you're cynical, which I might agree with.
Sorry for my brevity, I may have come across the wrong way. What I mean is that this measure doesn't take away control over of person. It's voluntary, just as with a EULA. You could, I guess, argue that EULAs are immoral because they take away your freedoms, but I don't hold that view.
Strictly interpreted my second sentence is trivially false; this whole thing is about controlling the ability of people to take weapons on planes, so let me refine my statement: it's not about power and control over the visibility of your genitalia, which follows from the fact that you still have control over it.
What something is 'about' is a stupid semantic point, and not really worth arguing. More interesting is what it does. Money is spent, TSA officers see through your clothes, you are to some extent hindered from bringing weapons on planes. I consider the seeing through clothes part as the least important term in the equation, hence my confusion and the massive argument.
Just wondering, what kind of security checks do certified pilots have to go through before flying?
Yes, I think that's the point. Or politics if you're cynical, which I might agree with.
Sorry for my brevity, I may have come across the wrong way. What I mean is that this measure doesn't take away control over of person. It's voluntary, just as with a EULA. You could, I guess, argue that EULAs are immoral because they take away your freedoms, but I don't hold that view.
Strictly interpreted my second sentence is trivially false; this whole thing is about controlling the ability of people to take weapons on planes, so let me refine my statement: it's not about power and control over the visibility of your genitalia, which follows from the fact that you still have control over it.
What something is 'about' is a stupid semantic point, and not really worth arguing. More interesting is what it does. Money is spent, TSA officers see through your clothes, you are to some extent hindered from bringing weapons on planes. I consider the seeing through clothes part as the least important term in the equation, hence my confusion and the massive argument.
Just wondering, what kind of security checks do certified pilots have to go through before flying?
Oops, sorry about the triple post. Not sure what happened there.
The first sentence makes sense but the second one does not follow. Grow a brain.
Our culture has sexualized taboos over nakedness; mandatory nakedness is a form of humiliation and sexual assault.
I understand if your individual experience of culture is a step apart from the norm; but you must recognize that, even if you don't see people stripping off their clothes has a sexual element, plenty of people who go to strip clubs etc. do.
I understand if your individual experience of culture is a step apart from the norm; but you must recognize that, even if you don't see people stripping off their clothes has a sexual element, plenty of people who go to strip clubs etc. do.
Sure, I can empathize with that point of view if it's a "just because I can" type of power situation. But if it's a standard (assuming necessary) security procedure does it still carry the same weight?
If even 1/4 of the people in that line opted-out, it would be chaos in the security area. So do your part, and make a TSA agent uncomfortable.