Should Airline Passengers be Full-body Scanned?

The rights prescribed by the fourth amendment; Are these rights in effect in the homeland of citizens of Liberia? How about Israel?

This is not a question for America, this is a global issue.

From your American perspective: These rights prescribed by the fourth amendment; Are these rights in effect in the homelands of citizens of Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan?Should all citizens of any nationality be able to board a Coyne flight in Erbil (Iraq) bound for London, and expect to do so without being screened?

"We really need to start living in courage, not in fear." Is it acceptable to live with courage, but limit our exposure to fanatical activity impinging on our lives, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness?

The problem with this question is that they already do. We do not, in America, have the right to screen everyone heading this way BEFORE they board the plane at the distant end. Result? We suffer with all the searches, but the ones who would bring it to us, do so without the necessary search. And yes, I KNOW that there are many airports, in many parts of the world, who stand shoulder to shoulder with us, and do the necessary inspections, but the bad guys know where the holes are, and exploit them. And we DON'T have the right to search people coming our way from those places.

So, we suffer the indignity, but the biggest part of the problem still lurks unchecked out there.

And we suffer. Or, like me, we drive a lot. Which takes fuel. Which pays the Saudis and the like even more. So, for them, its win-win.

The rights recorded (not prescribed) in the constitution are human rights. Happily, the government of the United States contracted with its citizens to preserve and honor those rights. The fact that governments in North Korea, Myanmar, or Cuba have not made such arrangements as foundational for their existance is not really a good reason for our own government to break its faith with its citizens.

But if we must look to the international community to justify screening practices, why not borrow from El Al. They are able to maintain security without viewing all passengers' virtual nudity and without groping those who are not seen in the virtual buff. They even manage to keep their planes in the air without confiscating passengers' deodorant.

Well GKC, let us discuss the fourth amendment in more detail.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a search occurs when: A) Someone expects privacy in the thing being searched, AND B) Society believes this expectation is reasonable [Katz v. United States, 389, U.S. 347 (1967)] If you go to an airport intent on boarding an airplane, it is common knowledge you will be subject to search. Thus, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Another issue to consider: The fourth amendment prohibits search by the government, but does not prohibit searches by organizations not acting on behalf of the government.

Regarding El Al and the confiscation of deodorant: El Al follows the European Union(EU) Liquids/Gels Requirement Guideline (the link is from the El Al website). So, they have confiscated passengers' deodorant dispensers, and their flights are safer because of it.

Another issue to consider: The fourth amendment prohibits search by the government, but does not prohibit searches by organizations not acting on behalf of the government.

I don't understand how this is relevant as the TSA is acting on behalf of the government in performing these searches and any unwelcome 'search' in a public arena would be assault.

& I thought it was the Airlines With all of the Security.

Well the question that no one seems to have raised is "is the method chosen the most effective way to accomplish this? In other words how about applying some lean thinking?"

Similarly, any one in quality control want to talk about the effectiveness of 100 % inspection?

Fail.

The object of the act is to give us the illusion of security, but as each new possible threat modality is developed, the costs and waste and frictional losses to society grow geometrically.

Profiling accompanied by a non profile sampling plan would be much much more effective than the current theater of the absurd...

http://www.youtube.com/user/milo289#p/a/u/0/sjA4hq42Ads

milo

Hello Milo, and hello everybody. This is an interesting discussion today.

Milo, you said "Well the question that no one seems to have raised is "is the method chosen the most effective way to accomplish this? In other words how about applying some lean thinking?" In the past, I have looked at airline passenger screening as if I were considering picking up a hitchhiker. It is, after all, my vehicle. As well, the other passengers I already have in the car expect me to make good decisions regarding with whom we will share the ride to the ski hill. My screening of hitchhiker candidates is pretty lean; not a lot of interrogation, metal detection, or nudie scanning being done (one candidate pops up in memory that would have been an excellent candidate for the...well, never mind). With this lean method, I have had good luck with hitchhikers, with one exception. This single exception has forever curbed my vehicle from being availabile to hitch.

One way to change my mind might be a 100% inspection of every candidate. As you have already said, that method is FAILED before implementation.

Hi Man,

There is not such as 100% inspection when we have a failure, just inspection with some result. Also, 100% inspection is not necessarily produces defect-free conditions. I prefer not to inspect but get quality as specified.

Now, when the method fails, the specific inspection, we have to implement some changes, improvement to satisfy the specs.

Any THINKING and not necessarily LEAN THINKING is the best but we can accept Milo's suggestion to start what we have to change, Gil.

NB: If you disagree, let us know!

Hi Milo,

I don't want to inspect to produce quality. There are other ways to get things done without defects. To detect explosive or other harmful objects, yes I want to inspect.

However, I agree with your proposal of LEAN THINKING and I would like to participate.

To start: What we want to detect? Metal, some liquids, or other materials that can be turned into arm or explosives?

It's enough to get launched on the path of inspection, Gil.

Milo speaking: I actually hate six sigma but here is thestatistical basis for why inspection is a fools errand, and we are the fools victimsFrom a link I will attribute at the end:

"100% Inspection has an effectiveness of 40-65%. And that doesn't count the 5-10% breakage. It is a waste of people power. (Formally known as man-power) I remember reading, I think it was in one of Juran's books that 100% inspection is only 60% effective. than that.

"According to Dr. Jim Stewart of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, IL

While working on my dissertation, I was reviewing some trade magazines from the 50's. There were a number of case studies showing 50-75% efficiency and a breakage rate (visual inspections of wire wraps with pics) of 10-15%. Giving an effectiveness of 40-65%

(Long story omitted here)

What's my point, we could have 100% inspected radios for years and never found the problem. We were looking in the wrong place. So if you find yourself needing to 100% inspect, at least collect data and do the control charts, even just X Bar, Range and a Distribution charts can tell you a lot. You never know what it may reveal until you do."

End of quote from :http://www.sixsigmaspc.com/six-sigma-spc-articles/100-percent-inspection.html

BAck to Milo: Inspection is Not the answer. They are not collecting useful data.

This is just a charade.

A brutal one at that.

Milo

This is partially true. The contract when I buy an airline ticket is between me and the airline. The TSA is a third-party government authority that regulates (not legislates) that one party in the private contract has to submit to an unspecified search (at least it isn't written out on the contract between the passenger and the airline) prior to allowing the consensual transaction to take place. So the written consensual contract contains nothing about the details of the search and seizure procedure.

Further, the TSA can change their role in the contract without notice and without giving the opportunity for either the airline or passenger to back out of the "deal" and receive a full refund on the grounds that the terms of the consensual agreement were changed. People who booked flights in advance of the "enhanced" screening procedures were not offered a refund if they chose to back out of the deal when the terms and conditions imposed by the third-party changed. This is because the consent is between the individual and the airline, and their deal staid the same (you pay us money; we'll fly you from point A to point B). So the paying, "consenting" passenger and the service provider are not consenting to specified procedures; they are at the whim of the third party.

In order for the arrangement to be truly consensual, the specifics of the search procedure would need to be written into the contract between private parties. Then it would be explicitly agreed to by all parties involved, and the searching agency would be obligated financially in the event that it changed the terms prior to fulfillment of the contract.

The governmental third party justifies its involvement not on the grounds of a consensual agreement, but on the grounds that there might be a threat from anyone getting on an airplane. Historically, this has not been sufficient legal grounds for invasive search and seizure. Historically, the government agency is required, as the fourth amendment states, to obtain a warrant based on sworn testimony describing the particulars of the search to be conducted including who, what, when, where, and why. I still contend that it is not a consensual arrangement. Rather it does constitute unreasonable search and seizure. I believe the TSA would be hard pressed to demonstrate that confiscating a million tubes of toothpaste was a reasonable thing to do and that it has made the world safer.

Hi GKC,

It's intersting to read your eloquent language and hability to put together words that means absolutely nothing to people who want to blow up an airplane. You and those peole cannot get on the same wavelength. Could you catch that? If yes, you will be in the row with people who want to simply protect Americans.

People who blown up the "TWO TOWERS" in New York, they never understand your sophisticated sentences. They where there for a job but we don't have yet our scanners, could you understand that? Finally! Thanks to hear me, Gil.

Hi Hairless,

Yes, 300 million people ask for "government" care. Three times Americans voted for the "caring governments". When this 300 million people vote for a government that will help to eliminate eventual danger to the same people, I agree to eliminate all controls and scanners but not before, Gil.

NB: Understanding of reality and accept it is a slow motion action! This is not a quotation!

Hi GKC,

Who you try to attack or defend with your explanation? The inspection protect all Americans. Also, if you don't accept the way things are actually, choose other transportation from where you are to your destination. Cheese, I write like a lawyer. Between you and the airplane company we have the scanner and we have to pass through following their rules. Again, other choices are available.

I agree with Milo, and ask for some thinking about the inspection method efficiency. If you want some changes, let us know your idea. The present is the scanner, that is all, Gil.

"Those rights are yours to do with as you please. If you wish to use public transportation then they ask you to forfeit them. You do not have to forfeit them. Then you will also not be able to use a type transportation that require you to."

Our highways are not public transportation. They are private transportation on public roads. There is a margin of difference. As as of yet there has not been searches of private vehicles with out cause on our highways but it can happen. And they have not required it to use our highways. Commercial vehicle have been subject to it and can be at anytime.

As far as your computer is concerned they may tear it apart to search the insides for explosives or contraband. But the information is not with in the scope of what the search is suppose to be for. That would be a violation of your rights. Unless they have probable cause.

That's why we get to vote if you don't like what laws are made replace the people in office until they are to your liking.

Your despotic dictator will have a problem that's why the second amendment was written. That's is why the second amendment is away being tested.

Tea Party Time!!!

1. Some police departments in the US are currently experimenting with x-ray6 scanners that let them surreptitiously search your vehicle (and your home as well, although I do not know if they have extended that far yet) without your knowledge...whether you are on public roads or in a private parking lot.

2. Current law, as it is being applied, allow customs agents to search the data on your computer when you enter the United States from a foreign origin. Whether they have probable cause or not. If the data is encrypted and you refuse to provide a key, it is assumed you are hiding something illegal (i.e., child pornography, pirated software or music or movies or such...). Whether they have probable cause or not. Your refusal to give them the key is an admission of guilt. At the very least, your computer can be confiscated.

The more power you give them, the more they are going to push the limit to see just how far they can go...

Scary s**t Mate, isn't it?

It reminds me of ObL again. He is an American trained double (or even triple) agent and knows of all the ins and outs of the systematic backstabbing going on. He knows and plays on our weakness to recognize that the enemy is within. A state of denial it is called in psychology.

I think I will refrain from posting now, because I could be hurting other persons feelings. No, not only the Americans but all the people that are true believers in the dictator ships they survive (^{you can't call it living}), in.

That's it, I'm ouda here. I will not travel with a computer, that's for sure. Too many secretes, not enough money to bribe and take the easy way in and out of anywhere.

Take care, Ky.

Hi Warner,

I think you predict the future or we have big changes on this Earth. During wartimes we get controlled, inspected and sometimes executed.

In a free country as United States of America is, we already inspected people and told that they were communists. You remember the only American in the "Manhattan Project", Oppenheimer. In Canada, we also put all Japanese descent people in a safe area, controlled, and don't allow Italien descent people in the army, and have an eye on them during the WWII, etc...

Come on! Governments don't get the scanner in your kitchen? They use when you want to go in an airplane!

I respect the laws of the country I go to visit or live in. Also, I forget personal and personal privacy rights! When you get out of the house or apartment, I am in public place and the public laws are in vigour. I follow that path, Gil.

NB: Never forget that you are against 7 billions other human being!

I would agree with you but for one fact. Air travel is now a significant tool used in all sectors of our economy. Sure I have the right to refuse to be scanned by refusing to fly... but then what happens to my job, my family and my ability to remain a positive contributor to the economy. In this day you have a choice, bend over or bend over.

We aren't at war with idiots and all the trechnology you throw at this 'war on terrorism' only gives the terrorists impetus to be more creative. Absurd, invasive security protocol will not make you safe. At best, with 100% body scanning AT EVERY AIRPORT IN THE WORLD we will only generate the perception of security, which in my mind is the far greater evil.

No it's not a constitutional violation. It's just another stupid knee-jerk paranoid reaction that will cost us millions if not billions of dollars, and our respect of each others privacy, with no actual return on investment.

It would make far more sense to attack the source and starve out radicalism. In case you haven't figured it out, that source is hunger. Happy full bellied people with a nice warm bed to go home to at night very rarely get angry enough about anything to blow themselves up, even with the promise of eternal life and abundant virgins.

Flying is not an "essential liberty". Nice qoute but do get over it.

Airline flight is not an essential liberty. I was referring to the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The privacy of my person is an essential liberty, and that's the one I'm concerned about in this situation.

Potential passengers can choose not to fly. This results in lower profits to airlines, less tax to the government, cut-backs in staff numbers and all the other little things. If enough potential travellers are involved, the powers that be shall back down and look for alternatives. I for one don't really care too much if some strangers working for the airlines get to peek at my little dangly bits for the sake of national security. However I would feel differently about walking naked in public or of the possibility of my scanned images ending up on U-tube. On this point, there could be strong opposition from celebrities. If private jets/charters are included in the scans, then strong opposition also from the rich.

I can't see enough people refusing to fly for this thing to go away.

Haven't seen any comments from LynchLynch today. He's been a bit cranky last few days, hope he's ok.

He & Doorman are the same guy

Aguest

I also don't see enough people refusing to buy gas on (insert magic date here) to tell the oil companies we're all tired of getting raped at the pump while they report record profits year after year... I don't know about you but I'm well P.O'd at the Titans of Petrol, but they don't care because I'm just one voice... and I have to use their product or suffer in a society built around the idea of a car in every garage so until their is an economical alternative with a functioning infrastructure to support it they aren't going to change.

You want to legislate societal improvements? This is a better place to start creating a safer world than in my underwear.

And it's not about you and your dangly bits, it's about me and mine, it's about the old lady over there with the mastectomy, and the old man ashamed of his old man diapers... it's about the rights of others and respecting their privacy.

I suggest an alternative. Open a new airline, we can call it "Please God don't let the boogeyman get me airlines" and everyone who boards a plane will be subjected to in depth security probing... the rest of us can then carry on with our lives and take risks we see as reasonable... not that it matters, the instant a plane deviates from its course these days it is in peril of being shot out of the sky, which is far more of a deterent than checking a couple million peoples' intimate of intimates

Hi GKC,

I can agree on your comment. Yes, you have the rights what you tell us. However, imagine that a day you lost, honestly, it's not my wish, your wife and one of your child in a terrorist action on an airplane. I believe that your opinion will become different. So, for security purpose, every individual must pass through the machine. If the individual refuses, have to take the most common transportation, personal car, van or truck and do what they want in it without scanning anybody. Between you and me, nobody forces people to take an airplane, isn't it?

Americans lost many of their own to have the right to protect the next.

Times are changed from Franklin to today. What will be tomorrow if we let evolution directed by others? Think and act! Thanks for your good answer.

Also, amendments and other laws are made in other times and we have to adjust our minds and actions to the present realities, Gil.

I don't think anyone has said it yet... but there are people who fly in the course of their job. Now the argument shifts from simply "if you don't want the scan/search, then drive, walk, etc" to an argument of "if you don't want the scan/search, then get a different job". It isn't a simple matter of using different transportation, some people have to fly in order to put food on the table.

Hi Chaotic,

I think every human action is the result of a choice. Today, if you want to fly, you have to accept the today's law or have another choice.

There is no argument and I don't want to argure with you, I only have opinions and suggestions!

My suggestions are not being laws, so you don't have to accept, Gil.

Open discussion and allowing public forum is critical for major changes, IMO. All the opinions are valid. The point of open exchange of ideas isn't so much that everyone can live in harmony under a single idea, but to dispel myths, understand the various points of view, change your own if so inclined, and provide an arena to develop new ideas.

I would say there are always options beyond having your privacy invaded or taking another mode of transportation. Lobbying, becoming a lawmaker and voting for what you and hopefully your supporters believe, and of course civil disobedience! With a third of the country opposing the new security approach, I could easily see civil disobedience becoming a successful route to force their opinion (albeit the minority). There is nothing that forces one to roll over and simply accept today's laws, it's just a matter of how strong does the 1/3 believe vs the 2/3s and which is willing to "shout" the loudest.

Well reasoned and insightful.

Milo

Thanks. I can live with anything, if those who foist it on me are willing to deal with me as a rational human with valid questions and concerns. But ramming it down my throat (Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare, anyone?) is the surest way to make me shove it back at them, harder. And I agree with my daughter, who said, vis-a-vis calling a complaint line "Don't bother talking to anyone who can't fix it. You'll both get frustrated, and it still won't help". Insist on talking to the supervisor, and the supervisor's supervisor, until you get someone who CAN say whatever is needed. Then you'll also know that if they don't, the punishment you can mete out will be appropriately applied, if at all.

And the TSA screeners are not the appropriate targets.

"However, imagine that a day you lost, honestly, it's not my wish, your wife and one of your child in a terrorist action on an airplane."

Most terrorist acts are done using cars or pedestrians, not airplanes. What about subways? Look up Oklahoma City and the likes. Most people forget previous incident and cling to the last one as if it is the only one.

Over 40 000 people get killed unjustly by cars accidents every years (most of them preventable). This is equivalent to a large plane crashing every week.

When are we going to search each car driver and make sure that they are qualified to drive and maintain a proven killing machine?

If we let the government take our liberties away, they will take them one by one.

Soon, you will be searched if you want to walk on a busy sidewalk. You could be dangerous.

The governments of the world must go after the guilty and leave the innocents in peace.

As for the risks, you cannot save them all. That is what we have come to accept for car drivers and their pedestrian victims.

400 people dying in 300 separate car crashes a week kills as many as one large plane crash a week.

Why do we over react with planes? Because they could be aimed at the white house and similar. When it comes to politician's security, the cost for the population is not important...

Hi Guest,

I just read and understand but don't argue with you. Your comments are valueable. Sorry, I just gave an example about airplane and it's your privilege to criticize or add to my comments but doesn't change on the facts that we have to protect American people from attacks.

If you disagree with me, it's your privilege too!?

With other sentences, you pass to the extreme and we don't get a reasonable solution about protection. Do you promote violence? Clarify!

Concerning car accidents, there are not terrorists. They don't want to kill when they go in their cars, correct, healthy, sick or drunk. Also, accidents happen everywhere without killing as you mentioned.

You and me, we are car drivers for decades and we never killed someone, isn't it? This is a good point for both of us, Gil.

I don't like violence but I would defend my family to death against a real threat.

I just wanted to show how unbalance our perception is to different threat.

If I get kill by somebody, my wife and kids will be grieving whether the culprit did it willingly or not. They are actually going to be more scared if it is done by a burglar or street gang than by a terrorist.

A drunk car driver is as bad as a terrorist as he put himself willingly in a situation where he has a high chance of killing somebody. And it happens everyday!

I agree that we have to protect our family and friends but get the correct perspective and work on the right threat.

What is happening right now is that security is used as a pretext for government spending on expensive consultants and gadgets. The politicians don't let a good crisis go to waste. When people are scare, they tolerate all kind of abuses from the political class.

The over-reaction that we are experiencing is exactly what the terrorists want. We keep suffering after they left. The bastards won!

"imagine that a day you lost, honestly, it's not my wish, your wife and one of your child in a terrorist action on an airplane. I believe that your opinion will become different"

You are asking someone to make a rational decision based on emotion. This is not possible. In order to make a rational decision you must remove yourself from your emotional ties and look not at the impact on your life but rather to the impact on everyone's life. This is not something that can be done by the vast majority of people. In fact I doubt I could seperate myself under this scenario, but I hope that I would recognize that that puts me in a poor place to make a decision that will impact everyone.

simply ludicrous

Public safety demands full scans., until sufficient molecular detection is in place. If you don't want to participate, drive a car, buy your own plane, take the train. The constitution guarantees that you can choose to decline to be searched. This is in no way contradictory to airport scans.

Many people would love to fly, but can't afford it. Are they somehow guaranteed the passage? Of course not, they may choose it.

Hi Hairless,

You will change opinion when a badly installed ladder will kill someone and the free society will put you in jail for 10 years because you were lousy and unsafe for others. Again, you handle words with ease because you never was involved in some difficult situation. Wait, one day is your turn, and don't forget to send us your message, Gil.

I agree that the "Full Body Scans" and "Pat downs" are intrusive and an invasion of privacy. But, they aren't a violation of the Forth Amendment. No one is being forcibly subjected to these searches. You have the option to use another mode of travel if you don't want to be searched.

That is what I intend to do. It will be a while before I'm in another airport.

what about security checkpoints for:

military bases? I used to work on a military base [private contractor] & had to submit to various levels of search of my person & work vehicle, depending on the officer in charge at the time

some other public places that require various search techniques:

courthouses

DUI checkpoints?

stops in know drug or prostitution area's

Traffic camera's

in the private sector you may be searched before going into a nightclub, sports arena or other large venue

Are you trying to say that your right to privacy overrides the rest of the publics security?

more comprehensive search technologies are on the way, like it or not things change

You might not like the choices, but you do have them.. air travel is not a necessitity or a right

What alternative do you advocate?

air travel is subsidized heavily, just like highways

Search are not much different than the requirements that your car meets minimum safety standards, Public Safety

The privacy argument is one of the usual diversions[talking points] by the military industrial complex, to keep the gravy train rolling.

we're not having the right discussion, Milo is

the discussion should be how did we get to this point & how do we quit making it worse

some issues with this: your vehicle safety inspection is not required every time you use it, nor are you required to expose yourself to the inspector. And, more importantly, this is regulated at the state level and many states have no safety inspection at all. (On this issue I have an entirely different, and some might say contradictory, view point. I believe that, as driving is not a right, and it poses an imminent hazard to the public well-being that application for a license should require advanced testing and a demonstration of ability to deal with unexpected emergencies, not just a basic do you know what a stop sign looks like and can you parallel park. And your vehicle should be professional inspected for safety on at least an annual basis. Sort of like the FAA requires for planes and their pilots; because public safety is at risk. Of course the gov't has done research and determined that it is more economically feasible to make cars 'safer' than it is to educate people so that's not gonna happen...)

Otherwise I agree with Milo that we need to 'figure out' how we got here and how to stop making it worse. It's just that in my opinion, how we got here is obvious and the not making it worse aspect is exactly what I'm talking about.

Also, I'm offended that anyone may consider respect for my privacy to be a 'diversion'. I don't want to know what's in your underwear, and scanners won't accurately tell me anyway. I'd appreciate it if you didn't demand to see inside my shorts either, especially since it won't help you achieve your goals.

Modesty & privacy are not the same

no one cares what's in your shorts

hand wringing over technology is pointless

body scanners are more effective than metal detectors are more effective than pat downs, for finding weapons

"how did we get to this point"

Well basically by being totally slack, or maybe in denial, or maybe arrogant enough to think the USA 'untouchable'.

I say this next bit as a person who has carried some fairly weird devices and mechanisms, around the world by air.

After Lockabie, I was a regular inspection customer in all airport security - except in America.

Things the Europeans, particularly Italians, even Japanese and Australian baggage x-ray, would go hysterical about - (until pulled out and explained, often requiring an airline engineer, to established 'harmless') - wouldn't even raise an eyebrow in any US port of entry/exit, and were totally ignored on any internal US flight.

These guys obviously saw that weakness, and simply exploited it. And so the 'problem' touched US soil.

My post was aimed at the "violation of the Fourth Amendment" argument. You agree to subject yourself to scrutiny when you buy a ticket on any public conveyance. I dislike it as much as most of the others commenting here; I didn't like it when I had to take my shoes off the last time I flew. But The searches are just not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

BTW, if you look at my avatar, that's my transportation mode of choice.

Delta airlines is not a 'public' conveyance; though the airways are I grant. Unfortunately the next step from here is to put body scanners on buses, trains, taxis, ferries and freeway entrance ramps because those all take advantage of (or are) public conveyences... Precedence is a bi7ch that will come back around to bite us all, because those are the systems that will be used next time. So once we go through and spend a couple trillion to secure those we'll have to start worrying about space tourist terrorists and hitchhiking terrorists and bicycling terrorists... It never stops unless we stop it and I say stop it now before it costs us more.

Such hyperbole!

They are not thugs, they are government security. They do not chase you down, extort money from you, rape your daughter, bust your kneecaps or kill you if you don't use their bridge. They are there to ensure that those who access the most popular, highest profile and most efficient "bridge" are safe from criminals who try to exploit the popularity and profile of the bridge to instill terror, death and destruction.

TSA staffers don't enjoy groping random passengers any more than you or I would. They're not paid all that great, and they'd rather be sitting there bored out of their skulls. This situation is not their fault, it's the fault of religious terrorists.

So painfully true

The answer is NO, obviously. What they're doing to airline passengers is worse than what the police are allowed to do to criminal suspects. Quite aside from that, the full-body scanners are ineffective at doing what their advocates claim they're for. If they really wanted security, they would use bomb-sniffer dogs - a proven technology - for the explosives side, and profiling and security interviews to catch other forms of skullduggery. But the more I look into this, the more certain I am that the porno-scanners have two purposes, neither of which enhances security, namely:

To make money for Michael Chertoff, and

To get Americans accustomed to the idea that they have no privacy or property rights.

Oh how quickly people forget about 9/11!! Following that day everyone blamed the airlines and airports for lack of security. Now there are steps to help prevent another horrible day, and people are upset about their privacy being violated. I flew last week, went through the scanner and thought nothing of it. If you are against tighter security...WALK, SWIM or start flapping your arms!!

Fly Nacked..The rules to board a plane should be set by the person or persons flying the Plane..If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't go. enough said. The invasion of such action by the Gov. does touch on the 4th Amendment. You are welcome to ride in my car, but first remove your shoes..If you want to fly in my Jet you will wear a parachute. Ans. "But I don't wear Parachutes." Fine i'll see you when I get back.

"No one is worthy of a good home here or in heaven that is not willing to be in peril for a good cause" - John Mason Brown

Does anyone doubt that freedom and liberty are a good cause?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I for one am appalled that so many are so willing giving up their right to be free from unwanted groping; and worse, that enough people think it is a good idea violate this privacy as to have made it happen. Whether that groping is done with hands, eyes or machines makes no difference. Peering beneath my clothing is a clear violation of my privacy and I would rather risk being the victim of a terrorist plot than subject myself to the degradation and inconvenience of suffering through some other idiot's paranoia complex.

You believe that you are suffering through some idiot's paranoia complex? That's kind of of like being pissed off that you got a speeding ticket. It ain't paranoia if you are missing a couple of skysrcapers.

Hi Hairless,

Again, this is your choice and your right to have what you say. However, with your quote:

" Peering beneath my clothing is a clear violation of my privacy and I would rather risk being the victim of a terrorist plot than subject myself to the degradation and inconvenience of suffering through some other idiot's paranoia complex."

you become paranoiac by going against one single and protectionist law but you want the other law for some other purpose, belief, religious, political, or any at your choice. For you, everything must be your way, isn't it? Don't forget, you are not alone!

It's complicated to live with people around you, for example, they take places and often from you as in bus, airplane or just in a public park, you don't get all the time the best on everything!? Also, you have to follow certain rules from others. Example, give place to an older human being in public transportation. It's though to get along with others. We just put down or express our opinion about the subject, scanners and other checking machine that can attack your privacy and someone or you can turn it into paranoia. Just swallow what was said and build up your personal opinion and let us know without fighting, Gil.

An interesting discussion shot in the ass by rationalizations, passionate pleas for being understood, and emotional attachments to things not well understood.

I now have a headache. G'bye guys.

Don't ever expect reason, logic, or understanding from a libertarian. They are not capable of it. They love to take Ben Franklin out of context every chance. They never see the fallacy of the "logic" used. It is emotional and contradictory at every turn. Mostly spoiled brat syndrome. A Libertopia cannot and will not ever exist in the real world.

GA. Milo

So no one had mentioned this other side of the coin in this thread?

It's pretty obvious to me.

Being checked at an airport would be as close as I would get to an encounter of the sexual variety so for me it would be quit a pleasant experience.

In my dreams, I know, Ky.

Hi Ky,

You are right! Fear is installed amoung us but what to do to not get another "TWO TOWERS", "English SUBWAY", "Spanish TRAIN ATTACK", and other smaller things. It's nothing for you? They were people like us and they are not here anymore!

I agree that air traffic is slower. Economy is bad. There is no real action to stop it but what is your solution to get "PEACE" on this Earth?

Pearle Harbor created an action but OBL's action never was answered. WHY???

Like you said, he is taking time to drink a warm tea without any discomfort. Why is that way? Need an answer, and scanner is one of the answer today, and let them operate, Gil.

You're all not giving us (all) due credit.

The body scanners have been in process and in place since 2002. The fear only lasted a few months. The expense is a double-edged blade, because right now any economic activity is good. The economy didn't tank because of terrorism, it tanked out of politics and neglect.

Air travel is not that much slower. There are more security people involved, but as a flyer I haven't noticed a big slow-down.

OBL is not living comfortably. That's one of his things, partly. The martyr and jihadist complex he carries is inconsistent with comfort. But he has had to keep his head very very low, and as soon as he pokes it up too high, we will lop it off. Same with Zawahiri and anyone else who purports to be an Al Qaeda big-wig.

You may think the body scanners don't help much, but any little bit helps. In the meantime, we have 200K war fighters and a few dozen Predators "over there" to make the lives of any would-be jihadist short and miserable. That, and the combined efforts of our allies or nations that merely don't want to annoy us too much, is what I feel really has kept us relatively safe.

These airport searches are a minor inconvenience. If we were really scared or endangered, we wouldn't bother complaining about them, I think.

There are many things that terrorists could do that would cause more deaths and expense, but they're not spectacular. In that regard, they're the stupid ones, and we are winning.

Ignorance is no sin. Willful ignorance is unforgiveable.

Not my words, Ky.

The "naked body" scanners currently in the media frenzy would not detect nasty stuff hidden in body cavities. What are you going to do about those?

A better way to detect bad stuff would be to single out and search/question/use lie-detector on those individuals of nationalities/religions with a proven repeat history of hating our guts and wanting to kill us.

Then, there is the problem of the people who prepare the plane for flight and all the cargo and fuel that goes into the plane. What about the people that built the plane? The flight crew? Is that all safe?

How much do we have to do to be "safe"? This is one sick sonofapooch world to even provoke such a discussion isn't it?

I just received this brilliant idea from a former flight attendant:

Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at the

airports:

All we need to do is develop a booth that you can step into that will not

X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have hidden on or

in your body. The explosion will be contained within the sealed booth.

This would be a win-win for everyone. There would be none of this crap

about racial profiling and the device would eliminate long and expensive

trials.

This is so simple that it's brilliant. I can see it now: you're in the

airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an

announcement comes over the PA system, "Attention, standby passengers! We

now have a seat available on flight number..."

It was not easy to get my head around that one, I mean building the booth. A universal seek and destroy approach, even for luggage. Very complex machine it would be.

Instant payback and a good reason for the bad to find another way to disrupt our lives.

Their hatred has no bounds. Even viruses mutate for reasons unbeknown to us, or only a very few. Interesting but not practical. Still a good answer from me.

Interesting technical issue is how do you detonate? Enough energy to cause most explosives to go off would likely kill a person.

But I guess you could have a little shoot to drop a grenade in to 'justify' the deaths.

Or better still;

I've conceived of a modification to this idea... Instead of completing the monumental task of developing some significant future tech we merely convince the world we did. We'll generate reams of documentation to verify the testing proceedures and 99.7% efficacy (they wouldn't believe it is perfect). Then we take 1/2 the TSA staff, put them in plain clothes and install them into airports where they can periodically 'set-off' the body bomb detenator disappearing in a muffled WHUMP and whisps of smoke escaping the 'machine' to great theatrical effect. Once the world believes our scam the following will happen:

Our freedoms will be restored

Air transport will be safe from smuggled explosives (until they start sending binary explosives... go team!)

I get the Nobel Peace Prize for single handedly saving our airways and our economy from further abuses...

So what do you say CR4... let's get me that Noble Prize!

I wonder if this isn't that?

Its conditioning people for a one world government.