Would you support full body scan screening at airports?

[Vosem]

No, but I do understand why some people would want them.

[Frodo]

No.

Where does it stop?

[Alcon]

Where does being seen "naked" on an x-ray screen stop?  I'm not understanding to where this slippery slope is being alleged to lead.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I suppose they think the slope is leading to random or even mandatory full strip searches.

Actually I don't think full body scanning is that big of a deal, it doesn't result in X-ray vision to see under women's clothes like a teenage boy wishes for. You can't see much on it, the person appears as a white silhouette, with any objects they're carrying below their clothes sticking out clearly making guns and the like visible. Still wouldn't support it though because it's not really necessary.

[Frodo]

Where does being seen "naked" on an x-ray screen stop?  I'm not understanding to where this slippery slope is being alleged to lead.

What happens if we put up x-ray screeners in every airport, and a terrorist attack still succeeds?  What then?  Where do we draw the line?  You know as well as I do that nothing will ultimately stop a terrorist if he (or she) is determined and clever enough to evade whatever measures we enact in an effort to stop them.  

[Alcon]

Mandatory, random full strip searches would be horrible for business.  Having body scanners is not going to change that or desensitize people to it.  Being stripped in front of multiple people is violating even if you're an exhibitionist -- that's a power dynamic thing, not really an exposure thing.  This is overanalyzing, though, but as an inevitable slippery slope, that seems weaksauce.

I have no idea if it's effective when it comes to cost-benefits. But I will say that the embarrassment of this is essentially nil, so unless you're going commando, the worker in another room seeing your skivvies does not seem bad.  And even this doesn't seem especially violating to me.

I'm sure there are better arguments against it, though.

[Alcon]

Where does being seen "naked" on an x-ray screen stop?  I'm not understanding to where this slippery slope is being alleged to lead.

What happens if we put up x-ray screeners in every airport, and a terrorist attack still succeeds?  What then?  Where do we draw the line?  You know as well as I do that nothing will ultimately stop a terrorist if he (or she) is determined and clever enough to evade whatever measures we enact in an effort to stop them.  

Yes, but that's an argument against any expensive security precaution, which is totally fair game.  Obviously, if it ain't effective or worth the cost, forget about it.  I was only criticizing "when will the violation of privacy end?" type arguments.

[bgwah]

Not to be willingly obtuse, but is there some hidden privacy violation here that I'm not understanding?

A legal one?  God knows.

If the scanners see through everything, then obviously every woman is going to object to their privates being on a screen, also people with prosthetic devices which don't set off the detectors will have those in plain view, and of couse guys with small penises won't be happy .

It's a decency/privacy thing.....and unless you haven't seen the quality of our TSA screeners, I'll tell ya, I don't want some grocery store reject screener to have that kind of access.

Sounds like your dream job!

[Хahar 🤔]

No.

I fly home in a few hours. Let's see how things are.

[JerryBrown2010]

Yep.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Option 1  I'd rather give up some privacy if it means safety.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Option 1  I'd rather give up some privacy if it means safety.

Sounds like you deserve neither.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What I don't understand is this - we have the technology to send a space ship to the edges of our solar system, but we don't have the technology to scan for all that we need to scan for without some TSA slug staring at Mr. Happy on the screen?

I swear these scanner manufacturors hold back on the technology so they can produce "new and improved" equipment on a regular basis and rake in the cash.

[J. J.]

What I don't understand is this - we have the technology to send a space ship to the edges of our solar system, but we don't have the technology to scan for all that we need to scan for without some TSA slug staring at Mr. Happy on the screen?

I swear these scanner manufacturors hold back on the technology so they can produce "new and improved" equipment on a regular basis and rake in the cash.

Because I doubt that a machine can the difference between your Mr. Happy and an explosive device.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What I don't understand is this - we have the technology to send a space ship to the edges of our solar system, but we don't have the technology to scan for all that we need to scan for without some TSA slug staring at Mr. Happy on the screen?

I swear these scanner manufacturors hold back on the technology so they can produce "new and improved" equipment on a regular basis and rake in the cash.

Because I doubt that a machine can the difference between your Mr. Happy and an explosive device.

I'm not even going there, J.J.

[CPT MikeyMike]

What I don't understand is this - we have the technology to send a space ship to the edges of our solar system, but we don't have the technology to scan for all that we need to scan for without some TSA slug staring at Mr. Happy on the screen?

I swear these scanner manufacturors hold back on the technology so they can produce "new and improved" equipment on a regular basis and rake in the cash.

We had those scanners in Iraq back in 2006.  You can see everything and anything in those.  One of my MP Soldiers actually caught an Iraqi, coming into our FOB, with a gerbil-like creature - you can figure out where it was located! 

Are they effective for secuirty? YES 
Should they be used? I'm on the fence of this.

[nclib]

I just found the roll call vote to prohibit this. Passed by 310-118 with 75.7% of the Dems in favor and 67.8% of the GOP in favor. I would have expected a bigger split. Perhaps it's more of a libertarian-populist issue than liberal-conservative. Anyone see any other patterns?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I just found the roll call vote to prohibit this. Passed by 310-118 with 75.7% of the Dems in favor and 67.8% of the GOP in favor. I would have expected a bigger split. Perhaps it's more of a libertarian-populist issue than liberal-conservative. Anyone see any other patterns?

Well this makes things easier in deciding on these Senate races...

No   IL-10   Kirk, Mark [R]
No   PA-7   Sestak, Joe [D]
No   DE-0   Castle, Michael [R]


I hope these three lose.

[Derek]

Only if the person looked like a terrorist. Common sense can work wonders.

[King]

I would rather die in a plane crash then have all my privacy rights stripped away.

[Derek]

I'd let someone scan my entire body but only if it were a really hot woman.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'd let someone scan my entire body but only if it were a really hot woman.

What if it was a hot guy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How about they have two lines separated by gender. Males are scanned only by hot female staff and females are scanned only by hot male staff. That'd work.

[sentinel]

How about they have two lines separated by gender. Males are scanned only by hot female staff and females are scanned only by hot male staff. That'd work.

Probably not. What happens if the person is a transvestite or gay? What happens if theirs a shortage of workers of one gender and the men's line takes 10 hours? What about children? Who scans children?

I'd let em do it. If the guy wants to stare at my junk for a bit longer on a weird negative then so be it, he'll be staring long enough to miss the guy behind me with the bomb.

[Derek]

This is hysterical. They would look at certain things instead of search for bombs.