Passenger refuses body scan & pat down- records incident on phone.
227 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;26090035]Well considering it's my identity, yeah. I don't trust just anyone with it, least of all the TSA.[/QUOTE]
Do you have your card number tattooed on your dick or something? They don't store personal information with the picture.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26090095]Why would ANYONE risk jail-time to post a SHITTY picture of someone else naked[/QUOTE]
They won't necessarily leak maliciously.
[QUOTE=Capn'Underpants;26090071]These devices are here to make sure the plane isn't involved in an terrorist threat that will probably cause my death, it's only logical that I refuse to partake in their use.[/QUOTE]
Front row tickets to the security theatre!
[QUOTE=Killoch0;26090084]There are more than enough explosives that don't show up with chemical tests and can't even be found with sniffer dogs.[/QUOTE]
Name one explosive that isn't made up of a chemical compound. Oh yeah.
[QUOTE=Killoch0;26090084]And what if they haven't handled the explosives. What if ( and it is a longshot ) they didn't assemble the bomb or even strap it on themselves.[/QUOTE]
You'd still be detected.
[QUOTE=Killoch0;26090084]And the people who have fired guns in the past few days can all just get the full anal probe I suppose when they all come up positive.[/QUOTE]
I guess this is a problem for America.
You mention "full anal probe"... something that a full body scan doesn't do anyway. lol
[QUOTE=MrBob1337;26090135]Do you have your card number tattooed on your dick or something? They don't store personal information with the picture.[/QUOTE]
I take it you're one of those people who would be fine with CCTV all over too
Let's be honest people. Any guy that is bitching about these at airports either is fat, has a small penis, or has some other reason to hide from people looking at him.
[QUOTE=MrBob1337;26090135]They don't store personal information with the picture.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they've got access to determine who it is.
I would refuse the body scan because it gives you cancer .. I mean ffs it's xrays.
I actually want people to touch my junk, so I'll take the pat down.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;26090148]Let's be honest people. Any guy that is bitching about these at airports either is fat, has a small penis, or has some other reason to hide from people looking at him.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe they just don't want to go through a machine that basically strips them?
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;26090146]I take it you're one of those people who would be fine with CCTV all over too[/QUOTE]
What...? How is a grainy picture, timestamped, of one guy among among millions anything like CCTV?
It doesn't have your name. It doesn't have your address. There is no personally identifying information. The only reason you'd be marked is if you had a bomb or something. This is for a public place where bomb attacks hidden in clothing have happened in the past. If this can stop some of those at the price of a vast library of grainy, face-obscured nude photos of millions of people, so be it. If, for example, it marked down your name, address, and prior criminal history along with a better-quality photo of your face, that would be going too far.
And for the record, no, I think the UK's massive amount of CCTV is beyond scary.
[editline]16th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26090154]I'm sure they've got access to determine who it is.[/QUOTE]
OK, but this doesn't add or detract from that access. So that exists in the first place, and isn't changed by this.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26090170]Or maybe they just don't want to go through a machine that basically strips them?[/QUOTE]
Why do you care if it strips you to a metallic looking mess of pixels that is only seen by a few employees who you will never see again in your life?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26089730]Why would you go through the scanners, and then leave the plane and get a refund?
You get scanned before you go on the plane, not when you get off.[/QUOTE]
airport is what i meant, sorry
[QUOTE=DELL;26089208]The only time I can see pat down involving the groin area is if there is a reason to believe there hiding something.[/QUOTE]
You mean like when someone specifically tells security not to search there?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26090170]Or maybe they just don't want to go through a machine that basically strips them?[/QUOTE]
Really I just don't get how you can really hold that up against the safety of airline travel. If this saves even one planeload of passengers, even by just preventing an attempted bombing, is that not worth the hassel. Are those 100 to 600 lives not worth you little bit of inconvenience, and maybe a 30 second suspension of your right to privacy?
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;26090148]Let's be honest people. Any guy that is bitching about these at airports either is fat, has a small penis, or has some other reason to hide from people looking at him.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like a more insulting version of "Well if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't care about your rights", but equally dumb.
[editline]15th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Killoch0;26090274]Really I just don't get how you can really hold that up against the safety of airline travel. If this saves even one planeload of passengers, even by just preventing an attempted bombing, is that not worth the hassel. Are those 100 to 600 lives not worth you little bit of inconvenience, and maybe a 30 second suspension of your right to privacy?[/QUOTE]
Again, what can this detect that a metal detector cannot? I can't think of any explosive compound that doesn't require some kind of metal part to function as an explosive.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;26090245]Why do you care if it strips you to a metallic looking mess of pixels that is only seen by a few employees who you will never see again in your life?[/QUOTE]
I personally don't, but having seen some images, I could see why some people do. It's fairly invasive. Even if it's only seen by a few employees, it's a few more than the number that should see that "mess of pixels".
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;26090279]Sounds like a more insulting version of "Well if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't care about your rights", but equally dumb.
[editline]15th November 2010[/editline]
Again, what can this detect that a metal detector cannot? I can't think of any explosive compound that doesn't require some kind of metal part to function as an explosive.[/QUOTE]
No it sounds like a version of "If you've nothing to hide why do you give a damn"
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;26090279]Sounds like a more insulting version of "Well if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't care about your rights", but equally dumb.[/QUOTE]
You have[B] no [/B]rights because you are paying for an optional service. No one is forcing you to go to the airport, if you don't like their rules you can just fuck off. There is no viable argument against these scanners.
At all.
[QUOTE=Killoch0;26090274]Really I just don't get how you can really hold that up against the safety of airline travel. If this saves even one planeload of passengers, even by just preventing an attempted bombing, is that not worth the hassel. Are those 100 to 600 lives not worth you little bit of inconvenience, and maybe a 30 second suspension of your right to privacy?[/QUOTE]
This comment wasn't directed at you. I'm not going to even reply to this.
There are better options than a full body scan which isn't even effective.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26090316]This comment wasn't directed at you. I'm not going to even reply to this.
There are better options than a full body scan which isn't even effective.[/QUOTE]
You posted in a public thread, deal with replies to what you said.
And how are full body scanners not effective. Because there are other ways to hide bombs? You can say that about any form of security.
[QUOTE=Killoch0;26090423]You posted in a public thread, deal with replies to what you said.[/QUOTE]
You took my comment out of context was my point, and you knew that.
[QUOTE=Killoch0;26090423]And how are full body scanners not effective. Because there are other ways to hide bombs?[/QUOTE]
Yes, because there are other ways. Full body scans could be used in conjunction with other security scanners, but should not be made mandatory, as Congress is trying to do.
A puffer / chemical scan is much more effective than a full body scan, which is invasive.
[QUOTE=Killoch0;26090303]No it sounds like a version of "If you've nothing to hide why do you give a damn"[/QUOTE]
Terrible, awful, despicable philosophy. I'll leave you to figure out why because it has been stated many times before.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;26090315]You have[B] no [/B]rights because you are paying for an optional service. No one is forcing you to go to the airport, if you don't like their rules you can just fuck off. There is no viable argument against these scanners.
At all.[/QUOTE]
Well the fourth amendment is a viable argument against these scanners, since they are being performed by a government agency and the government is not allowed to perform unreasonable searches.
And you can't argue that "you don't have to use air travel" because it is the only option to travel overseas and the ability to leave the country is a right afforded to all Americans.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;26090315]You have[B] no [/B]rights because you are paying for an optional service. No one is forcing you to go to the airport, if you don't like their rules you can just fuck off. There is no viable argument against these scanners.
At all.[/QUOTE]
No blacks allowed in my cafe. Hey it's my cafe that is optional, so it's okay to be racist too, right?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26090468]You took my comment out of context was my point, and you knew that.[/QUOTE]
I really don't see it as being out of context., but if you don't want to answer that's fine.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26090535]No blacks allowed in my cafe. Hey it's my cafe that is optional, so it's okay to be racist too, right?[/QUOTE]
If he's a libertarian he will miss your sarcasm and agree with you.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't like it when people tell me I have no rights.
Haha, human rights in America are such a joke.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26090535]No blacks allowed in my cafe. Hey it's my cafe that is optional, so it's okay to be racist too, right?[/QUOTE]
Technically speaking, yes. Private property. Its not employment or anything like that. Private businesses have every right to refuse to serve anyone they wish. Things like housing, transportation, and the like fall under different laws because things like housing are considered necessary, and things like buses and trains typically fall under public facilities, meaning they are extensions of the government and thereby cannot discriminate. If Target wanted to refuse to serve someone for being black or gay or female, they can. May not be fair, but that is how it works. Rights retained by the people. Constitutional Amendment.
[QUOTE=Snuffy;26090630]I don't know about you guys, but I don't like it when people tell me I have no rights.[/QUOTE]
Naw man, you're losing rights but gaining security! It's an even trade, right?
[QUOTE=Zeddy;26090645]Technically speaking, yes. Private property. Its not employment or anything like that. Private businesses have every right to refuse to serve anyone they wish. Things like housing, transportation, and the like fall under different laws because things like housing are considered necessary, and things like buses and trains typically fall under public facilities, meaning they are extensions of the government and thereby cannot discriminate. If Target wanted to refuse to serve someone for being black or gay or female, they can. May not be fair, but that is how it works. Rights retained by the people. Constitutional Amendment.[/QUOTE]
In the US?
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act]no[/url]
[url=http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html]hell no[/url]
[QUOTE=Zeddy;26090645] If Target wanted to refuse to serve someone for being black or gay or female, they can.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that's illegal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.