Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 3,371
- Location
- Hell!! \m/
What happens if your in queue and you're next and you look down and let's just say your jeans are 2 sizes too small? What do you do, goto the back of the queue?
Flight Ban for refusing X-Ray
- Thread starter Casdawer
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 2,547
Irony of you hurling insults is he is more right than you are lol, this is nothing more than a placebo
If you engaged your intelligence instead of seeing red you would have read it as him saying the current procedures are adequate and the money could have been better spent on more safety in the air from accidents (which cause more incidents than terrorists ever have)
They do this in Dentist also
Thats for repeat exposure anyway, once/twice a year isn't going to do much if anything at all
Like I said above, unless you have something in your body that might get affected by the X-Ray in some way...then meh. Take the damn X-Ray, or bend over
something in your body that might get affected by x-rays... hmmmm..... your dna..? every cell in your body?
i assume these scanners use non-harmful x-rays.. is there such a thing? i take it they cannot expose you to much...
What exactly do these scanners show?. I think I'm confused between the full body fairly vivid naked image scanners and normal metal detectors?. Anyone care to inform me? (about the level of image quality, the data retention, where these images are stored, where they go etc).
I do not feel comfortable with the idea of stored images of my naked self existing due to my wanting to fly on a plane, or of my future children, so on and so forth. I'm not worried about my genetalia lol, I'm not a terrorist, and there are naked photos of me floating about already I'm sure. But that's a totally different scenario. We're potentially talking about a database of millions of images of nude kids/adults no?. Seems a bit odd to me. I can totally understand someone objecting strongly, jesus I suppose we've all had partners or know people who have huge issues with their physical form, how do these people feel? (the millions of them). I don't even think I'm comfortable with the notion of airline/security employees watching a bunch of naked people anyway. Do they have to take an oath like a doctor would?, or some other similar thing?. Or do they sit around at lunch time chatting **** about the naked people (just like you would imagine, I mean, it's a job, and scanner watchers aren't going to be highly educated professionals are they).
I guess I'll go through if it means missing a flight, but really, seems kind of weird to me.
I do not feel comfortable with the idea of stored images of my naked self existing due to my wanting to fly on a plane, or of my future children, so on and so forth. I'm not worried about my genetalia lol, I'm not a terrorist, and there are naked photos of me floating about already I'm sure. But that's a totally different scenario. We're potentially talking about a database of millions of images of nude kids/adults no?. Seems a bit odd to me. I can totally understand someone objecting strongly, jesus I suppose we've all had partners or know people who have huge issues with their physical form, how do these people feel? (the millions of them). I don't even think I'm comfortable with the notion of airline/security employees watching a bunch of naked people anyway. Do they have to take an oath like a doctor would?, or some other similar thing?. Or do they sit around at lunch time chatting **** about the naked people (just like you would imagine, I mean, it's a job, and scanner watchers aren't going to be highly educated professionals are they).
I guess I'll go through if it means missing a flight, but really, seems kind of weird to me.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,778
I'm all for the scanners at airports, it's for added safety and it's more practical and less obtrusive if you go through some scanners as opposed to being searched by security personnel in my opinion. If it even stops one terrorist incident then it'll have done it's job and the argument I read on one of the first two pages saying that it's a massive inconvenience for a tiny success rate is a bit stupid to be frank.
Ah ok, I seem to have answered my own question, partially. This is the type of image it produces ('Rapiscan Secure 1000');
And we think that this is acceptable?. Bearing in mind that millions of kids will also pass through this machine.
And we think that this is acceptable?. Bearing in mind that millions of kids will also pass through this machine.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,778
What do you think is worse though? Pictures that for arguments sake are solely used to determine whether something is being concealed that shouldn't be, or someone slipping through the net with a knife, gun or explosive? It's not as if you are sending HD photographs of your kids genitals to known paedophiles, it's a security force doing the job it's paid to do.
It's a private security firm afaik?. Do we know anything about the people who monitor these machines?, or about the data trails?.
Also, that's a terrible terrible argument. More conventional means of security. Metal detectors, luggage scans and when needed - physical searches have proven to be huuuuugely effective. What's the ratio of successful flights v.s terrorised flights?, it must be astonomical in favour of successful flights. A terrorist attack on a flight is so very very rare that this technology is to me unacceptable. If terrorist attacks via plane were frequent, or even remotely possible (I would wager, according to the odds as they stand, that they are certainly not) then maybe they should be introduced as an alternative means of security, for those who wish to save time goign through conventional security. But all in all, above the possibility of them catching out the one in 5.000.000 passengers who pose a risk, they are a blatant invasion of your privacy, and this to me is not acceptable. No way, no how.
Also, that's a terrible terrible argument. More conventional means of security. Metal detectors, luggage scans and when needed - physical searches have proven to be huuuuugely effective. What's the ratio of successful flights v.s terrorised flights?, it must be astonomical in favour of successful flights. A terrorist attack on a flight is so very very rare that this technology is to me unacceptable. If terrorist attacks via plane were frequent, or even remotely possible (I would wager, according to the odds as they stand, that they are certainly not) then maybe they should be introduced as an alternative means of security, for those who wish to save time goign through conventional security. But all in all, above the possibility of them catching out the one in 5.000.000 passengers who pose a risk, they are a blatant invasion of your privacy, and this to me is not acceptable. No way, no how.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,778
Then don't fly.
You're saying that you don't think it's acceptable as the lack of terrorist attacks by plane means that this is a bit overkill for the amount of attacks that actually occur, you also said that if they were more frequent you might understand. That's a bit morbid isn't it? Saying that if hundreds or even thousands of people were killed on a regular basis only then does it become acceptable to use methods such as this to quickly find out what passengers are really carrying/concealing?
Didn't 9/11 happen because of lax security at the time? Since then airport security has been ramped up a fair bit, it's just the age we live in.
I'm sure most security staff at airports have seen far worse than my ugly body. If they want to break their scanner, then that's their problem. 
But seriously, if you don't like the security, don't fly. That's the way it's been for many years. Could have been worse - could have been a flight with El Al. They have a reputation to uphold.
But seriously, if you don't like the security, don't fly. That's the way it's been for many years. Could have been worse - could have been a flight with El Al. They have a reputation to uphold.
It's not morbid at-all, it's very sensible.. How do you think these things are decided?. There will be 2 factors. Political reasoning, and statistics. Nothing more.
You're putting words into my mouth tbf, but as I said, why are my liberties at stake?, I pose no threat. And neither do almost all of the population. It's a matter of statistics, and so in a sense yes.. I am saying that unless terrorist plane attacks occur far more regularly than they do now, then this invasion of privacy is to me at least - entirely unnaceptable. Further more, as an aside, these scanners, why are they not on street corners?, night club entrances etc. How many lives are lost on this island, rather than above it?, why are you lead to believe that one is more important than the other, so on and so forth. And indeed, how long until they are introduced in public places?. Will you play along then?. Where does protection end and invasion begin?.
Again, utterly ridiculous. Are you suggesting that because a handful of lunatic fundamentalists hijacked 3 aeroplanes half way around the world my right to privacy should be revoked?, and that we should pay hundreds of millions of pounds for the privelage. I can't see how that makes sense. No doubt security was lax, but as I said in my second post.. Conventional security is more than up to the job.. Bomb detection, metal detection, knife detection, it's all working very well as it stands, so long as it's properly implemented. This is evidenced by the fact that almost ALL planes reach their destination without 'terrorist' incident. I don't have the numbers, I could google for an hour and come up with something, but we both know that it's going to be a 99.9% probability that you will not be the victim of an airborne terrorist attack.
I'm giving you a little palpable debate here, things that you can go away and verify with numbers and statistics. You're giving me emotional responses, with no real justification for the invasion of our privacy, which is exactly what the government require in order to bleed your rights away from you (*cringe*). I don't wear a tin hat, honestly, but I mean, wow. Ask yourself, are these things really necessary?, and at what cost? (financially and morally).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,778
There's hardly anything political about deploying these types of scanners in airports, I don't see how it's a breach of human rights, or an inconvenience to take a few minutes to go through with the process, especially as it is something that can potentially save lives.
Yes, you may pose no threat along with the vast majority of others, but what does that mean? That you go on appearances and only fully scan the people who look like terrorists? As you like stats and sensible reasoning so much then look at the people behind suicide bombings and plane highjackings in the last decade and you'll probably find that the majority look like they originate from Middle East, does this mean that airport security only ask those people to go through the scanners as statistically they are the ones who could be involved in such acts of atrocity to save everyone else the bother as they 'obviously' aren't terrorists?
There are already scanners in public places, government buildings and state schools for example and it takes a few minutes out of your day to walk through them, it's not invasive of your privacy, you make a conscious decision, when you book your plane tickets you know there's every chance the airport you go to will have scanners that you will need to pass through.
Yes, that is what I'm saying, a bunch of religious whacko's decided to kill hundreds of innocent people and if any measures can stop this happening again then we have to take them, as I've said before it's just a precaution.
How much of YOUR taxes goes into extra security like this? In my opinion having a higher proportion of taxes going on security measures is a much better idea on them going towards something completely useless.
How can you say that it's purely down to the other forms of security that almost all planes reach their destinations nowadays? Have you got any figures pre-X-ray scanners and then stats to compare with X-ray scans? If not then I'll assume you just made that bit up.
I'm hardly getting emotional one iota, and it's not an invasion of our privacy, that's a personal choice and a personal feeling. If I have to take several minutes out of my day to walk through a detector then that's fine, I understand it's for everyone's benefit and I wouldn't be the only one doing it so where's the problem? Would you rather strip-searching instead?
This seems to be one of your biggest concerns, i did some googling.
These are results from over the pond, but it rings a bell form a few news reports i saw on the UK news.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,378
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Yeah. Okay. It's only a matter of time to be honest.
I'm pretty sure there is more chance of being struck by lighting hundred consecutive times, whilst running around Glasgow naked escaping the entire British Armed Forces armed with inflatable hammers, than being killed at the hands of a terrorist on a plane.
So you believe the "evidence", but don't think it will stay that way? Isn't that a totally separate matter?
Has sir considered decaf?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
We might as well stop securing planes on internal flights, as no unknown foreigners are involved it is no different to any other domestic event where it would be possible to cause a horrible terrorist attack such as the FA cup final, Glastonbury, just planting a bomb somewhere in a town centre or the underground.
For whatever illogical reason, terrorists have picked planes as their device for destruction, but if you make them secure as there is no real reason to use a plane for the terrorism, what does it achieve? they will just move onto the next thing.
There are no security checks for the other stuff i mentioned, once you are in the country it is simply a matter of wanting to do it and getting a bomb, not exactly hard and imposable to prevent.
So once we are all being bum raped to get on a plane they will just move onto the next easiest target, then we lose all our rights to that as well and then they move on again, where does it end?
you don't need a piece of metal going at 500mph. most people could build a bomb if they really wanted, and why even explosives, they are the traditional terrorist weapon but why not just get a gun or sword/knife and kill about 20 or so people before the cops get there and then kill yourself.
planes aren't special.
it is akin to protecting your field by putting a fence up at 3 sides, we are now all penned in but no more secure because anyone wanting to get in will just walk around.
I am not saying we should reduce plane security, obviously all things have their relevant risk and should have appropriate security for its own individual risk but to try and say this will stop terrorism is incorrect.
And dangerous weapons are illegal almost everywhere anyway so that is obviously not what I ment. Once we start losing our rights and freedom then the terrorists really have won.
idiot.
Last edited: