• Passenger refuses body scan & pat down- records incident on phone.
    227 replies, posted
[QUOTE=dogmachines;26099763]I'm not sure the "slippery slope" is a good argument against airport security. For fuck sake, it's a pat down. It's not like they check your rectum and are required to search your house for bomb making supplies so you can get on the plane. It's a basic thing that makes sure you don't have a weapon or some related item. If you loosen security you make it easier for people to sneak these items through. In a perfect world we wouldn't need security measures like this, but this is not a perfect world, there are people out there who would kill you given the chance. You can either ignore them and ease security or acknowledge the threat before they tear you a new asshole.[/QUOTE] YET. As more people are dissuaded from flying by these regulations, what will TSA do next? Set up security checkpoints on the highway? Though I will admit that TSA presence at train stations has kept terrorists from hijacking a train and crashing it into a building...
[QUOTE=Mr. N;26096370]Holy mother of god just die. The procedures are there for a reason. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] Seriously Zeke, you are just so full of bullshit I sometimes wonder if it is possible to take you seriously.[/QUOTE] People are likely to take me more seriously than someone who uses the phrase "holy mother of god just die" as a rebuttal.
A) You can't give up or sign away rights. Contracts that demand you do so are void. B) The local police officers should have ripped TSA a new one. If that guy decided not to board the plane, then the federal TSA agents no longer have even an inkling of jurisdiction and the local officers should have escorted him from the building free from hassle. Fucking police weren't doing their damn job and protecting citizens.
[QUOTE=Ridge;26099876]YET. As more people are dissuaded from flying by these regulations, what will TSA do next? Set up security checkpoints on the highway? Though I will admit that TSA presence at train stations has kept terrorists from hijacking a train and crashing it into a building...[/QUOTE] The government isn't taxing 90% of your wages, YET. Books aren't outlawed, YET. See my point?
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26100051]The government isn't taxing 90% of your wages, YET. Books aren't outlawed, YET. See my point?[/QUOTE]Except he had logical a logical slippery slope example and history backs his claim up.
[QUOTE=Ridge;26099876]YET. As more people are dissuaded from flying by these regulations, what will TSA do next? Set up security checkpoints on the highway? Though I will admit that TSA presence at train stations has kept terrorists from hijacking a train and crashing it into a building...[/QUOTE] A security checkpoint on the highway won't happen, especially not because of a low number of people flying. The purpose of airport security isn't simply to catch terrorists, it's to keep them from using the aircraft as missiles/blowing them up. There is currently no justification for checking cars on the highway, because there haven't been any car bombings for quite some time in the US. The reason we need airport security is because air travel is a major target of attacks.
Tbh, I don't see what the big deal is. I fly all the time and I've had to go through the body scanners before too. Was no big thing. They didn't make me strip and get naked, I just stood there for a few seconds and moved along. There were no problems, no pat downs, no nothing. The security has never been anything but polite to me and my family when we fly. Unless the airports in other places just suck horribly, the airport here is really nice and has great staff.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;26099904]People are likely to take me more seriously than someone who uses the phrase "holy mother of god just die" as a rebuttal.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ZekeTwo;26093384]You're the type that'll say this one day then bitch about fascist commie nazis born in Kenya the next[/QUOTE] Yet you use this as a rebuttal. What.
[QUOTE=TheFacePuncher1;26089205]Who gives a fuck if you're naked. I'm pretty sure you don't care when it's with a girl you love.[/QUOTE] Implying you've been naked in front of any female other than your mother, implying being in the buff when you're with a chick you like is the same as being naked in front of a security guard with a lubed up latex glove. Craziness all up in this bitch! :derp:
[QUOTE=-AJ-;26091148][img_thumb]http://www.sikharchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/backscatter_narrowweb__300x4640.jpg[/img_thumb] Chubby blue ghost porn.[/QUOTE] This is strangely arousing... [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=HolyCrusade;26093060]I'd like to see a legitimate argument against these scanners, all I've read so far is "hurr durr PRIVACY RIGHTS VIOLATED" and yet their life will not be changed in any manner [I]whatsoever[/I] by using them. Please, give one me one good reason. Why do you, specifically, not like these? Say what you want, I bet deep down you're just self-conscious. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] If the same is true about these scanners, why take the extra step and waste time/money?[/QUOTE] how about this you're being fucking bombarded by xrays. Xrays are bad. They're radiation and they fuck with our shit. You remember those old xray machines that had you stand in it and it xrayed your whole body or part of it right in front of the doctor? You know how they stopped using those and now use flash xray instead? But never over the whole body? You know how xray techs wear lead gowns to protect themselves? Yeah. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Maucer;26098187]Ill reply to this because of the disargee and dumb ratings. These body scans deliver from 0.1 to max 5 microsevierts of radiation. Just by walking outside you absorb almost 10 microsevierts of radiation daily because of backround radiaton.[/QUOTE] Uhm excuse me no. A [i]dental[/i] xray can dose up to 9000 microsevierts. That only focuses on a small part of your body. Even the smallest dose of dental xray is 30 microsevierts, and those are barely used. So you're incredibly wrong. Imagine how powerful the xrays they're focusing over your entire body are. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] Also keep in mind that xrays deliver so much radiation that the absorbed radiation is almost always recorded in milisieverts, not microsieverts. [quote]For acute (that is, received in a relatively short time, up to about one hour) full body equivalent dose, 1 Sv causes nausea, 2-5 Sv causes epilation or hair loss, hemorrhage and will cause death in many cases. More than 3 Sv will lead to LD 50/30 or death in 50% of cases within 30 days, and over 6 Sv survival is unlikely.[/quote] These things are not fucking harmless and they are in no way safer than background radiation.
[QUOTE=Telepethi;26100706]how about this you're being fucking bombarded by xrays. Xrays are bad. They're radiation and they fuck with our shit. You remember those old xray machines that had you stand in it and it xrayed your whole body or part of it right in front of the doctor? You know how they stopped using those and now use flash xray instead? But never over the whole body? You know how xray techs wear lead gowns to protect themselves? Yeah.[/QUOTE] They said [B]statistically[/B], someone will get cancer from this. Well guess what, [B]statistically[/B], someone will get a disease from a dirty needle while getting their blood drawn.These things aren't dangerous.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;26101927]They said [B]statistically[/B], someone will get cancer from this. Well guess what, [B]statistically[/B], someone will get a disease from a dirty needle while getting their blood drawn.These things aren't dangerous.[/QUOTE] Radiation is cumulative. The more times you go through, the more radiation you accrue and the higher the chance that you will receive a small point mutation in your DNA that is replicated before your DNA repair systems have a chance to cut it out and replace it with the proper nucleotide. If that mutation happens to retask the enzymes produced by the DNA, or simply inhibit its growth restrictions in any fashion, then you have a tumor. Radiation, however small, IS NOT A HAPPY THING.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;26100051] Books aren't outlawed, YET.[/QUOTE] Given the ridiculous censorship measures being taken nowadays, that one might not be as far out in 10 years as you claim. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;26102158]Radiation is cumulative. The more times you go through, the more radiation you accrue and the higher the chance that you will receive a small point mutation in your DNA that is replicated before your DNA repair systems have a chance to cut it out and replace it with the proper nucleotide. If that mutation happens to retask the enzymes produced by the DNA, or simply inhibit its growth restrictions in any fashion, then you have a tumor. Radiation, however small, IS NOT A HAPPY THING.[/QUOTE] This. You can't drink a flask of vodka when you get home to solve this problem in the real world.
The dude probably got a small dick and it's why he didn't want to go through the scan.
Fuck you lot, you idiots probably wouldn't care if freedom of speech was removed as long as you could still sit on your fat asses playing Black Ops. This is why you leave politics to people who go outside and interact with the world.
[QUOTE=Deruu;26089580]I don't get what the problem is. The scans make it easier to tell if someone's hiding a weapon. And I can't imagine that anyone would look at this: [img_thumb]http://cityofatlantic.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/tsa-body-scan.jpg[/img_thumb] and feel aroused. I wouldn't feel violated by a body scan if the image turned out like that.[/QUOTE] OMG HOTTT *fwap fwap fwap fwap fwap*
I personally would be fine with these machines if it wasn't for the alleged health hazard.
.. I take Zeke seriously. Also, I heard that these body scans aren't as effective as the TSA makes it out to be. I've been through one before (as has my under-aged sister), and I couldn't help but wonder if it somehow gave the guy behind the screen some sort of kick- creeped me out a bit. I'd take a pat-down by a same-sex officer anyday.
[QUOTE=Maucer;26097917]The images will be destroyed straight away, say the authorities[/QUOTE][url=http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans]Oh, really?[/url]
[QUOTE=stone555;26106052][url=http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans]Oh, really?[/url][/QUOTE] Wow
[QUOTE=stone555;26106052][url=http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans]Oh, really?[/url][/QUOTE] Oh dear.
-snip because I wasn't thinking-
[QUOTE=stone555;26106052][url=http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans]Oh, really?[/url][/QUOTE] How the [i]fuck[/i] are you supposed to garner [i]any[/i] information about what a person is carrying with that? I couldn't even fucking tell what I was looking at let alone if something bad was showing up. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Extroll;26106261]Yes. Because I could totally see a straight guy getting pissed off that he can't go into a gay nightclub because he's not gay.[/QUOTE] Alcohol is alcohol I wouldn't give a shit if it was a Martian bar. If I want a drink and it's the only one around I'm going in. It's not like homosexuals are raving sex addicted rapists that don't know what 'no' means.
[QUOTE=Telepethi;26106312]How the [i]fuck[/i] are you supposed to garner [i]any[/i] information about what a person is carrying with that? I couldn't even fucking tell what I was looking at let alone if something bad was showing up.[/QUOTE] Article says those are low res samples.
[QUOTE=Telepethi;26106312]How the [I]fuck[/I] are you supposed to garner [I]any[/I] information about what a person is carrying with that? I couldn't even fucking tell what I was looking at let alone if something bad was showing up.[/QUOTE] They are as Ridge said, low res samples. [IMG]http://www.sikharchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/backscatter_narrowweb__300x4640.jpg[/IMG]
I know the article says they're low res but why is the option even there? They're useless. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] Also looking more closely at that woman (Is it showing clothes? I don't see any creases but I don't see genitals either...) it's really creepy how the xray removes clothing but you can still see where it's affecting the body. I.e. the belt at her waist and how it's pushing the flesh.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;26096370]Holy mother of god just die. The procedures are there for a reason.[/QUOTE] to make white people feel safe even though they are not any safer then they were before. only this time it costs tax money. edit the chances of your plane being hijacked are way lower then the chances of you getting in a car accident and yet you dont spend an hour driving a half a mile an hour so you dont hit anything
[QUOTE=Telepethi;26106454]I know the article says they're low res but why is the option even there? They're useless. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] Also looking more closely at that woman (Is it showing clothes? I don't see any creases but I don't see genitals either...) it's really creepy how the xray removes clothing but you can still see where it's affecting the body. I.e. the belt at her waist and how it's pushing the flesh.[/QUOTE] [img]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/11/c410f9622e8436da180fc29cb2a969fc/340x.jpg[/img] That's just a small version of it. I'm sure the TSA could leak higher resolution photos if they wanted to.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26106541][img_thumb]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/11/c410f9622e8436da180fc29cb2a969fc/340x.jpg[/img_thumb] That's just a small version of it. I'm sure the TSA could leak higher resolution photos if they wanted to.[/QUOTE] What, are his lower leg bones made out of metal?
[QUOTE=starpluck;26106412]They are as Ridge said, low res samples. [img_thumb]http://www.sikharchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/backscatter_narrowweb__300x4640.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] fap fap faohmygodthat'sterrifying
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.