So are they going to set one of these up at every sporting event, shopping mall, train station, town square, movie theater, church, and tourist site? Terrorists can attack any of those places just as easily if not easier. Heck, we should have one of these machines everywhere. At your work, the post office, McDonald's, etc.

 

lol the report was about airport security (which is obviously the main target). once again, sqwert goes off the deep end and rages.

 

Edited January 3, 201016 yr by mr_genius

lol the report was about airport security. once again, sqwert goes off the deep end and rages.

Yeah I just punched out my entire family and killed my dog because you enraged me with all of this.

Yeah I just punched out my entire family and killed my dog because you enraged me with all of this.

 

domestic violence is not the answer, sqwert.

domestic violence is not the answer, sqwert.

I know. Something about airport screening machines pushes me over the edge.

I know. Something about airport screening machines pushes me over the edge.

 

Well, maybe this will sooth your soul

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...am-1856175.html

 

Since the attack was foiled, body-scanners, using "millimetre-wave" technology and revealing a naked image of a passenger, have been touted as a solution to the problem of detecting explosive devices that are not picked up by traditional metal detectors – such as those containing liquids, chemicals or plastic explosive.

 

But Ben Wallace, the Conservative MP, who was formerly involved in a project by a leading British defence research firm to develop the scanners for airport use, said trials had shown that such low-density materials went undetected.

 

maybe they are not ready for use yet. maybe they will never be effective.

Edited January 3, 201016 yr by mr_genius

maybe they are not ready for use yet. maybe they will never be effective.

Just based off of what I know about the kind of electromagnetic waves that we have accessible, it sure seems like there ought to be a way to get this to work correctly, if you can make the machines smart enough. Doesn't mean we're there yet, there might not have been a desire for this equipment's development until af ew years ago.

Yea, but seriously, you could restrict access to the screening room. You could even have it in a separate part of the airport and when there is a security breach they send an electronic message directly down to security at the screening point. If we can't keep some doofus from running into the screening room then we might as well just give up.

On the other hand...there are these cell phones these days that have pretty good cameras.

So are they going to set one of these up at every sporting event, shopping mall, train station, town square, movie theater, church, and tourist site? Terrorists can attack any of those places just as easily if not easier. Heck, we should have one of these machines everywhere. At your work, the post office, McDonald's, etc.

 

Beneath the hyperbole is a great point. Closing off one avenue for terror simply means the terrorists will move on to another type of target.

Beneath the hyperbole is a great point. Closing off one avenue for terror simply means the terrorists will move on to another type of target.

The response to that is pretty easy. How many situations are there where a small explosive can kill 200-300 people, other than an airplane? You force them onto other targets, you potentially save lives.

On the other hand...there are these cell phones these days that have pretty good cameras.

 

have you seen the scan images? there is no way to tell who it is. it's like some weird corpse looking silhouette, can't make out facial features.

have you seen the scan images? there is no way to tell who it is. it's like some weird corpse looking silhouette, can't make out facial features.

I've seen some of them, and I think either you're wrong now or you'll probably be wrong at the next software update. I'll bet if you saw yours, you'd recognize your face.

Beneath the hyperbole is a great point. Closing off one avenue for terror simply means the terrorists will move on to another type of target.

 

it goes to the argument of "if you can't stop every possible attack don't bother to try and stop any of them".

 

 

Edited January 3, 201016 yr by mr_genius

I've seen some of them, and I think either you're wrong now or you'll probably be wrong at the next software update. I'll bet if you saw yours, you'd recognize your face.

 

 

 

 

 

i don't think you understand how the technology works. anyways, whatever. if you are that sensitive about some random security personnel seeing an image like that of you, that's your sensibilities and I’m not going to tell you are wrong.

Edited January 3, 201016 yr by mr_genius

The response to that is pretty easy. How many situations are there where a small explosive can kill 200-300 people, other than an airplane? You force them onto other targets, you potentially save lives.

 

True. But the goal is terror and body count is just one way of achieving that. How much poison does it take to cripple a municipal water supply? How many elevators falling to the ground before people are afraid to take an elevator?

flying is a special risk - the confined space and vulnerability, not to mention the fact that you are flying in a guided missle, means security needs to be special. Further, flying isn't a right, any more than driving is. I'm all for these scanners, and suggest that for those who aren't willing, that they can wait in a different line, and undergo the full pat-down instead, which takes a lot longer.

 

it goes to the argument of "if you can't stop every possible attack don't bother to try and stop any of them".

 

I think it goes more to the "unintended consequences" of our actions. If the goal is to get one step ahead of criminals, we need to be prepared and look for their next move.Take away one target and they will not just go away.

If the goal is to get one step ahead of criminals, we need to be prepared and look for their next move.Take away one target and they will not just go away.

 

you need to use a variety of techniques to be effective.

flying is a special risk - the confined space and vulnerability, not to mention the fact that you are flying in a guided missle, means security needs to be special. Further, flying isn't a right, any more than driving is. I'm all for these scanners, and suggest that for those who aren't willing, that they can wait in a different line, and undergo the full pat-down instead, which takes a lot longer.

 

Or they can create flights for people who don't believe in the extra security...

flying is a special risk - the confined space and vulnerability, not to mention the fact that you are flying in a guided missle, means security needs to be special. Further, flying isn't a right, any more than driving is. I'm all for these scanners, and suggest that for those who aren't willing, that they can wait in a different line, and undergo the full pat-down instead, which takes a lot longer.

 

Overall, with proper concern for privacy, I am also for these scanners.

 

I am concerned when we are forced to give up other rights because something is not a "right". It probably falls within the 10th Amendment, but just because something is not defined as a rights does not mean we can throw out the Constitution when someone is involved in that activity.

Or they can create flights for people who don't believe in the extra security...

 

I believe there is a point where we cross a line. I do not believe these scanners necessarily are over the line, but this slippery slope falls a long way.

I believe there is a point where we cross a line. I do not believe these scanners necessarily are over the line, but this slippery slope falls a long way.

 

That was actually a joke...

That was actually a joke...

 

LOL, missed that one.

 

I wonder, if given a choice of a 30 second wait with minimal security or a 30 minute wait for more security, or a 2 hour wait with maximum security, which plane would have more passengers.

Overall, with proper concern for privacy, I am also for these scanners.

 

I am concerned when we are forced to give up other rights because something is not a "right". It probably falls within the 10th Amendment, but just because something is not defined as a rights does not mean we can throw out the Constitution when someone is involved in that activity.

The software already contains measures to protect - obscuring certain areas as long as they don't contain something bad, no facial features, and no memory function.

 

i dunno... i just think all the hoopla is ridiculous. yes, s*** happens. yes, s*** will continue to happen. but iran has these kinds of suicide attacks daily. ours have now been separated by 8 years. there's absolutely no way to guard against terrorism except by invisible measures (ie: intelligence). Extra scanners will cost $ and the terrorists will figure out a way around them anyway. Plus, like has already been mentioned - you make air travel 100% secure, then they'll just bomb a subway. Naturally the government is forced to do something just so it can look like they're doing something in response, but any measure that gets taken will be a useless, superficial one designed to make the masses happy - even if it doesn't increase security, and even if it wastes millions, if not billions of dollars.

i dunno... i just think all the hoopla is ridiculous. yes, s*** happens. yes, s*** will continue to happen. but iran has these kinds of suicide attacks daily. ours have now been separated by 8 years. there's absolutely no way to guard against terrorism except by invisible measures (ie: intelligence). Extra scanners will cost $ and the terrorists will figure out a way around them anyway. Plus, like has already been mentioned - you make air travel 100% secure, then they'll just bomb a subway. Naturally the government is forced to do something just so it can look like they're doing something in response, but any measure that gets taken will be a useless, superficial one designed to make the masses happy - even if it doesn't increase security, and even if it wastes millions, if not billions of dollars.

This is the opposite extreme of the fearmongering. It makes no sense to do nothing, really. You plug the obvious holes you can, you adjust over time to new tactics... that will prevent many deaths. That is worth it. the key is just to not get past the point of diminishing returns, where you prevent no more loss of life but keep spending billions. Hard to know where exactly that line is, but that doesn't mean you should just throw up your hands and give up either.