# Full body scanner - would you?



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Aside from the debat over how fool proof these are - would you go thru a full body scanner if it made life easier at the airport? i would - i really dont care if some guy sitting in a room looking at thousands of crotches a day gets excited or not, he probably would get real bored real fast anyway, so would you go thru? or is the issue of privacy more important


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

My primary concern would be radiation and not privacy. Then again one gets a fair amount of radiation during a long flight, especially at northern latitudes.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

If people simply had to fly naked it would (i) expedite security checks, (ii) promote fitness and (iii) reduce the incidence of "appropriate wear for flying" threads on AAAC 

In seriousness, a pilot's license has never looked more appealing.

DH


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I love flying but, hate airports. As to the question of "to screen or not to screen," with all the other risks associated with day to day living, I doubt the amount of "extra radiation" associated with such screening, is going to get me and I would rather take that risk than have some stranger squeezing and tugging at my body parts...unless she's really cute, of course!


----------



## Scotch&Cigars (Dec 27, 2009)

A friend of mine, who happens to be a radiologist, explained to me that the risk to individuals from these machines are low, due to the low power/intensity of the x-rays. But that's just one doc's opinion; I'm sure others will differ.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> In seriousness, a pilot's license has never looked more appealing.
> 
> DH


Agreed. It is little surprise that those who can afford to have availed themselves to private aviation. In almost all respects, public aviation has become airborne bus service--minus the passing countryside.

The privacy issues regarding scanners don't bother me. Our pedantic failure to adopt El Al type security does concern me greatly.


----------



## cecil47 (Oct 25, 2009)

I get the wanding and full body pat-down every time I fly because of a full hip replacement. Considering this alternative, I actually seek out the full body scanners. It's faster & easier for me, and I could care less if someone sees a full xray image of me, I lost that type of modesty long ago.


----------



## Scotch&Cigars (Dec 27, 2009)

smujd said:


> Our pedantic failure to adopt El Al type security does concern me greatly.


Amen. What gets me is that you will inevitably get the people shouting "but they racially profile!" To which I say: a) so what? b) Perceived race and nationality is actually only a very small, and even superficial, part of a proper profiling procedure. El Al's profiling is very complex and intense, and includes behavioral specialists, speech pathologists, and many other complex features.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> I love flying but, hate airports. As to the question of "to screen or not to screen," with all the other risks associated with day to day living, I doubt the amount of "extra radiation" associated with such screening, is going to get me and I would rather take that risk than have some stranger squeezing and tugging at my body parts...unless she's really cute, of course!


Of course if the wife is present and your ahem - - springs to attention, you may have some 'splainin' to do.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

It doesn't matter either way to me. I never wear a lot of metal objects to airports anyway.



eagle2250 said:


> *I love flying but hate airports.* As to the question of "to screen or not to screen," with all the other risks associated with day to day living, I doubt the amount of "extra radiation" associated with such screening, is going to get me and I would rather take that risk than have some stranger squeezing and tugging at my body parts...unless she's really cute, of course!


Heard that. I never get bored of looking out the window on airplanes.


----------



## gizmojunkie (May 12, 2009)

The use of a full body scanner does not bother me at all. I would even go naked if it would expedite the process.

When balancing safety and privacy - safety is the most important. Privacy (in this context) is a luxury and a foolish academic exercise when compared to the life of a loved one. 

Best regards,


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Of course if the wife is present and your ahem - - springs to attention, you may have some 'splainin' to do.


LOL...I wouldn't have time for no "splainin". I'd be running for my for my life, in the other direction, screaming like a sissy!


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

gizmojunkie said:


> The use of a full body scanner does not bother me at all. I would even go naked if it would expedite the process.
> 
> When balancing safety and privacy - safety is the most important. Privacy (in this context) is a luxury and a foolish academic exercise when compared to the life of a loved one.
> 
> Best regards,


Except the choice isn't between privacy and safety, and framing it as such is a false debate. These machines will do NOTHING to enhance safety. They provide the perception of safety, and will stop no one committed to taking down an airplane.

If these machines actually did the job they are supposed to do that would be one thing, but airport security is a ridiculous joke. It will never stop a concerted terrorist attack and only winds up costing us millions of wasted hours and millions of dollars in fake security protocols to make people "feel" safe.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

harvey_birdman said:


> Except the choice isn't between privacy and safety, and framing it as such is a false debate. These machines will do NOTHING to enhance safety. They provide the perception of safety, and will stop no one committed to taking down an airplane.
> 
> If these machines actually did the job they are supposed to do that would be one thing, but airport security is a ridiculous joke. It will never stop a concerted terrorist attack and only winds up costing us millions of wasted hours and millions of dollars in fake security protocols to make people "feel" safe.


Your wrong. It also provides employment for mindless jackbooted thugs that would otherwise be fit for nothing.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I would prefer a woman to do a full body scan on me and nobody else.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

beherethen said:


> Your wrong. It also provides employment for mindless jackbooted thugs that would otherwise be fit for nothing.


I stand corrected.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Do you have to get naked,Is it a requirement?


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

No, it's not required to get naked, but the technology is such that you can literally see through a person's clothing, including his or her genitals.

https://www.livescience.com/technology/090401-airport-scan.html


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*this is just a display of power...over the passenger*

No. And I don't tolerate the other indignities that have been thrust upon us in order to make ninnies feel safe. I'd rather risk getting blown up, and the risk is not reduced anyhow.

Privacy is a concern, even though I am positive the screener will be as inattentive as always. It's an infringement that I don't care to suffer.

I'll take a bus or train or boat or whatever before I fly commercial these days.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

341 Americans died slipping in bathtubs on American soil In 2007. How many were killed by terrorists on US soil that year? 40,000 people are killed in auto accidents every year. 

Priorities, please.


----------



## Scotch&Cigars (Dec 27, 2009)

To bring some levity to the conversation (and at the same time be a little politically incorrect just for humor's sake):






Disclaimer: if you have a poor sense of humor, or are overly sensitive and politically correct, you might want to skip the link.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

:clappyhands:


----------



## cecil47 (Oct 25, 2009)

As I said before, I actually seek out the scanners, not because they make me feel safer, but because they expedite the ordeal of going through security. What a sad state when I'm willing to give up privacy for expediency.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

harvey_birdman said:


> No, it's not required to get naked, but the technology is such that you can literally see through a person's clothing, including his or her genitals.
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/technology/090401-airport-scan.html


Now How in the world can anyone hide something in their genitals, I mean unless you can hide something up your rear end.


----------



## JayJay (Oct 8, 2007)

I don't mind the scanners, but traveling by plane commercially overall is not the fun experience that it used to be. I hate flying commercial even though I have to do it frequently.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Howard said:


> Now How in the world can anyone hide something in their genitals, I mean unless you can hide something up your rear end.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule_(smuggling)


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Bring on the scanners! I have nothing to hide and much to be proud of.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## stewartu (Jan 12, 2008)

young guy said:


> Aside from the debat over how fool proof these are - would you go thru a full body scanner if it made life easier at the airport? i would - i really dont care if some guy sitting in a room looking at thousands of crotches a day gets excited or not, he probably would get real bored real fast anyway, so would you go thru? or is the issue of privacy more important


Are you under the impression that there will be a choice? You wanna fly = body scan. I do agree with you though and it would not bother me in the least.


----------



## stewartu (Jan 12, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> Bring on the scanners! I have nothing to hide and much to be proud of.:icon_smile_big:


LOL :icon_smile_big:


----------



## stewartu (Jan 12, 2008)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> No. And I don't tolerate the other indignities that have been thrust upon us in order to make ninnies feel safe. I'd rather risk getting blown up, and the risk is not reduced anyhow.
> 
> Privacy is a concern, even though I am positive the screener will be as inattentive as always. It's an infringement that I don't care to suffer.
> 
> *I'll take a bus or train or boat or whatever before I fly commercial these days.*


You must not travel much.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Those pewter figurines are what the scanners pick up?


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm not modest. I've also seen what those things show, if I had a wife, I wouldn't mind her going through it either. Its just a 3D silhouette.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Exactly. And any TSA officer who gets off to those images probably finds this fella pretty fetching.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

harvey_birdman said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule_(smuggling)


Thanks Harvey so what this is saying is that people CAN hide things in different places in their bodies but it would need a deep body cavity search?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Go ahead... full body scan me... I don't mind giving someone a cheap thrill. I much prefer it to getting felt up by the TSA man.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

I wonder who gets the job of looking at people's no-no places...


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> I wonder who gets the job of looking at people's no-no places...


The same dropouts and felons that are currently failing to do security, I would assume. And, of course, kiddie porn fans.

Anyone noting that you apparently have to 'put your hands up' for this gimmick scanning? Pretty sure it's just to add more indignity, inconvenience, and supposition of guilt. Stick'em up and let us see you naked because we're in charge, peon.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Why am I left thinking chatsworth would be among the first to complain, if no screening were in place and a bad guy, with weapons and/or explosives, made it on board his flight? We may never know just how many catastrophes have been prevented by these comparatively minor inconveniences!


----------



## jtb (Sep 8, 2004)

Let's face it: ANY dignity associated with flying commercial jets went out the window LONG AGO. So what difference does this new twist make? Having some bloke scan my body through my clothes is nowhere near as troubling to me as is the rest of the check-in process, the ridiculous excuse for a "seat" that I have to contort to for several hours, the jackass five seats behind me who forces his oversized bag into the the overhead compartment above me and crushes every thing of mine in the process, the incessant excuses for delay, and so on, and so on. Serving Tylenol, instead of peanuts, ought to be de rigueur.

For short trips, say between DC and NYC or Boston, the train is my only consideration. The
the thought of flying is the absolute last resort. If only AMTRAK didn't take days to traverse the entire country.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

What if a hot sexy blonde needed to do a body scan?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Fearmonger*



chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> I'd rather risk getting blown up, and the risk is not reduced anyhow.





eagle2250 said:


> Why am I left thinking chatsworth would be among the first to complain, if no screening were in place and a bad guy, with weapons and/or explosives, made it on board his flight?


Because you don't have good reading comprehension? 
You may be the type willing to sacrifice liberty for security and receive neither. I am not. If you haven't seen the news in the last few weeks, the security charade has been exposed a few more times.
The goal of terrorism is not death or destruction, but terror. People getting treated like prisoners just to board a Greyhound bus of the sky are the true victims of terror.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

^i'd rather walk thru a scanner if it mean i dont have to take my shoes off, my belt off, empty my pockets, etc etc. it would be practical and save time for me - yes me - whether it stops terrorism is almost besides the point, if some one wants to take down a plane they will find a way no matter what - but most people want the government to at least try to keep us safe. so i'll walk thru a scanner and not feel a prisoner any more than feeling a prisoner when i wear a seat belt when driving


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

As Shlomo Dror noted (in 2002, as I recall), "The United States does not have a security system; it has a system for bothering people." Unfortunately, these scanners seem to be more of the same.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Why am I left thinking chatsworth would be among the first to complain, if no screening were in place and a bad guy, with weapons and/or explosives, made it on board his flight? We may never know just how many catastrophes have been prevented by these comparatively minor inconveniences!


But have we heard of any terrorists actually being stopped by these security measures? I find it hard to believe that they could keep it all under wraps.

It may seem from my earlier post like I'm all for these security measures -- and to a certain extent I _am_ if it qualms the fears of some people -- but I really want to start seeing results before we step it up any more.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

I agree that the scanners would not stop a well prepared bomber. It is not solution for any but the crudest threats. Metal detectors can be defeated also so that is no solution.

Second the nude flying is an option but I believe in equality. If we should strip so should the inspectors, flight attendants and pilots. I am undecided about baggage handlers.

finally, regarding our little gold buddy pictured above, he wields quite a sword and has beautiful women chasing after him year after year. I don't think I will try to compete with that.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Scoundrel said:


> I wonder who gets the job of looking at people's no-no places...


I am wondering how long it will take before we see a "good touch/bad touch" guide for travelers.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*Expect higher air fare to cover trendy gizmos*



Jovan said:


> But have we heard of any terrorists actually being stopped by these security measures? I find it hard to believe that they could keep it all under wraps.


Bingo. The Feds certainly love to grandstand every time some hapless potheads are duped by an undercover instigator, so I doubt the TSA is keeping a single accomplishment secret. They'd love to aggrandize every conceivable hazard actually caught, but Occam's razor says they have nothing to show.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

young guy said:


> ^i'd rather walk thru a scanner if it mean i dont have to take my shoes off, my belt off, empty my pockets, etc etc. it would be practical and save time for me - yes me - whether it stops terrorism is almost besides the point, if some one wants to take down a plane they will find a way no matter what - but most people want the government to at least try to keep us safe. so i'll walk thru a scanner and not feel a prisoner any more than feeling a prisoner when i wear a seat belt when driving


I do not want the government trying to keep me safe. The government can't balance it's own checkbook for heaven's sake, what makes you think it could possibly protect us from terrorism? My safety is my responsibilty, not the government's.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

harvey_birdman said:


> I do not want the government trying to keep me safe. The government can't balance it's own checkbook for heaven's sake, what makes you think it could possibly protect us from terrorism? My safety is my responsibilty, not the government's.


+1...we don't need the govenment doing a lot of things for us.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

harvey_birdman said:


> I do not want the government trying to keep me safe. The government can't balance it's own checkbook for heaven's sake, what makes you think it could possibly protect us from terrorism? My safety is my responsibilty, not the government's.


so tell me, what are you doing to insure that terrorists are not getting on airplanes - are you alone taking care of all national security ? So if you get blown up sitting in an office building it's you own fault? i wish i were omnipotent like you - sigh


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Howard said:


> What if a hot sexy blonde needed to do a body scan?


From today's Drudge:

I suspect that if you sent a mule through with sufficiently interesting "attributes" the drooling goon looking at the image would completely miss the plastique while oggling the silicone.

El Al security is contractors, not government employees, and they interview every passenger. I heard an interview with a guy who had been head of it. He said that he could secure any flight IF he had people who were intelligent and articulate enough. The nature of government employment is such that we can never have that kind of security. TSA is a jobs program, not a security program. "Governmentization" of airport security should never have been allowed.

My experience with our government over the last 20 years has increasingly demonstrated that whenever the "government" gets anything done, it is actually being done by contractors while the diverse face of government employment takes the credit.


----------



## jtb (Sep 8, 2004)

Liberty Ship said:


> From today's Drudge:
> 
> ...
> 
> My experience with our government over the last 20 years has increasingly demonstrated that whenever the "government" gets anything done, it is actually being done by contractors while the diverse face of government employment takes the credit.


This is because every large program that the government staffs with federal employees is executed via 'recipes" and other rigid practices. The environment in which the employees are placed, combined with selection/hiring practices in the first place, result in a workforce set up to turn cranks and not think creatively. My wife is a federal employee working in an Army personnel shop, and I cringe every day at her reports of how senior technical people and managers are selected for federal positions. It's no wonder that nearly every government process is inept and, unfortunately, expensive.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Liberty Ship said:


> From today's Drudge:
> 
> I suspect that if you sent a mule through with sufficiently interesting "attributes" the drooling goon looking at the image would completely miss the plastique while oggling the silicone.
> 
> ...


What's that black thing above her crotch?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

TMMKC said:


> I am wondering how long it will take before we see a "good touch/bad touch" guide for travelers.:icon_smile_big:


or a Body Scanning For Dummies.


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

We must understand that this is a temporary solution while finding a real one to the source problem.

All measures have been labeled as the most effective one when announced, but you see, sooner than later, terrorists end up finding a way to trick them. Regardless our race or origin, we humans are fast learners, and the fastest when we mean harm.

I don't mind getting a full body scanner, what I've done in the past years is to manage to reduce my trips to, and within the States, to a minimum.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

young guy said:


> so tell me, what are you doing to insure that terrorists are not getting on airplanes - are you alone taking care of all national security ?


Frankly, I'm doing the same thing the government is doing, nothing.



> So if you get blown up sitting in an office building it's you own fault? i wish i were omnipotent like you - sigh


No, it would obviously be the fault of the terrorists. I may not be omnipotent but I am a better protector of my own safety than some faceless bureaucrat in Washington or some minimum wage stooge at the TSA. I also prioritize and assess risk. I am a million times more likely to die in a car accident than I am in a terrorist attack*. So I drive slowly and wear my seat belt and spend less time worrying about things that are NOT going to happen to me.

*I made this figure up, but I would not be surprised if it was surprisingly accurate.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Because you don't have good reading comprehension?
> You may be the type willing to sacrifice liberty for security and receive neither. I am not. If you haven't seen the news in the last few weeks, the security charade has been exposed a few more times.
> The goal of terrorism is not death or destruction, but terror. People getting treated like prisoners just to board a Greyhound bus of the sky are the true victims of terror.





Jovan said:


> But have we heard of any terrorists actually being stopped by these security measures? I find it hard to believe that they could keep it all under wraps.
> 
> It may seem from my earlier post like I'm all for these security measures -- and to a certain extent I _am_ if it qualms the fears of some people -- but I really want to start seeing results before we step it up any more.


The word is deterrence! I am one who chooses to look at every flight that enjoys a safe take-off, and landing as a potential terrorist act deterred and an example of a successful security screening process. Present efforts are not perfect but, they have taken many, many options away from the terrorists. Rather than taking the easy path and simply electing to demean the character of those performing the screening task, perhaps we should apply our imaginations to suggesting ways the system might be improved.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8447399.stm


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

harvey_birdman said:


> I am a million times more likely to die in a car accident than I am in a terrorist attack*. So I drive slowly and wear my seat belt and spend less time worrying about things that are NOT going to happen to me.
> 
> *I made this figure up, but I would not be surprised if it was surprisingly accurate.


and the only reason you wear a seat belt, the only reason its there, is that the government mandated they be put in cars for Your safety - you can thank you government for that and a million other things theyve done


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> and the only reason you wear a seat belt, the only reason its there, is that the government mandated they be put in cars for Your safety - you can thank you government for that and a million other things theyve done


Preston Tucker introduced seat belts in 1947.

Chrysler Corp. made airbags standard 10 years before they were mandated.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Liberty Ship said:


> My experience with our government over the last 20 years has increasingly demonstrated that whenever the "government" gets anything done, it is actually being done by contractors while the diverse face of government employment takes the credit.


And I'd trust a man who misused his authority to spy on someone he didn't like to keep these files private.

Sure I would.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Preston Tucker introduced seat belts in 1947.
> 
> Chrysler Corp. made airbags standard 10 years before they were mandated.


yes, and were they standard on all cars? you want to leave your safety in the hands of corporations whose only interest in the bottom line, buy some chinese milk products then, or pet food


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

young guy said:


> and the only reason you wear a seat belt, the only reason its there, is that the government mandated they be put in cars for Your safety - you can thank you government for that and a million other things theyve done


That's simply not true.



> After the Saab GT 750 was introduced at the New York motor show in 1958 with safety belts fitted as standard, the practice became commonplace.[16]


And furthermore, wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is NOT required in Pennsylvania, yet I do it anyway. That decision has nothing to do with the government, but rather with my own ability to assess the risk of riding without a helmet. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting the government has no place in our lives whatsoever, but I would like to see it go after things that are reasonable.

Requiring airbags in automobiles in a nation in which 40,000 people are killed in auto accidents every year, is not unreasonable.

Forcing people to go through body scanners, endure humiliating searches, deal with power tripping TSA agents, increase wait times tenfold and overpay for airplane tickets to fail to defeat the ONE airline terrorist attack (which itself was incompetently carried out) we have suffered in 5 years is NOT reasonable.



young guy said:


> yes, and were they standard on all cars? you want to leave your safety in the hands of corporations whose only interest in the bottom line, buy some chinese milk products then, or pet food


No. I don't leave my safety in the hands of corporations, OR in the hands of government. I am a grown adult and I'm able to take care of myself, thank you very much. Granted, I eat too many fatty foods and I perhaps overindulge in alcohol from time to time, but those are my personal choices and I'd prefer others interfered with them as little as possible - both governmental and corporate interference.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

harvey_birdman said:


> No. I don't leave my safety in the hands of corporations, OR in the hands of government. I am a grown adult and I'm able to take care of myself, thank you very much. Granted, I eat too many fatty foods and I perhaps overindulge in alcohol from time to time, but those are my personal choices and I'd prefer others interfered with them as little as possible - both governmental and corporate interference.


again i am amazed that you can know so much as to make sound judgements on the safety of ALL food products, medicines, transportation, mechanical devices, electronic, building and all things man made, it boggles my mind that any one person can know so much, i just wish i were half so smart, if you dont rely on the government or corporations where do you get your information from?


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

young guy said:


> again i am amazed that you can know so much as to make sound judgements on the safety of ALL food products, medicines, transportation, mechanical devices, electronic, building and all things man made, it boggles my mind that any one person can know so much, i just wish i were half so smart, if you dont rely on the government or corporations where do you get your information from?


The internet. What would you like to know about?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

harvey_birdman said:


> The internet. What would you like to know about?


ROTFLMAO - well thank Al Gore for inventing it


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> again i am amazed that you can know so much as to make sound judgements on the safety of ALL food products, medicines, transportation, mechanical devices, electronic, building and all things man made, it boggles my mind that any one person can know so much, i just wish i were half so smart, if you dont rely on the government or corporations where do you get your information from?


Listen more.

Talk less.

That's all.

Good luck.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> From today's Drudge:
> 
> I suspect that if you sent a mule through with sufficiently interesting "attributes" the drooling goon looking at the image would completely miss the plastique while oggling the silicone.


But something is telling me that the woman used for demonstration isn't wearing a certain undergarment. Note that you can make out panties and no further detail down there, while everything above is completely visible. Thus, it makes me wonder how much detail could actually be seen on the average passenger.



eagle2250 said:


> The word is deterrence! I am one who chooses to look at every flight that enjoys a safe take-off, and landing as a potential terrorist act deterred and an example of a successful security screening process. Present efforts are not perfect but, they have taken many, many options away from the terrorists. Rather than taking the easy path and simply electing to demean the character of those performing the screening task, perhaps we should apply our imaginations to suggesting ways the system might be improved.


I am doing no such thing. I have nothing but respect for the people at the TSA. I'm just wondering whether it's going to have any impact.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Listen more.
> 
> Talk less.
> 
> ...


listen to whom? thats the question


----------



## harland (Oct 13, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> If people simply had to fly naked it would (i) expedite security checks, (ii) promote fitness and (iii) reduce the incidence of "appropriate wear for flying" threads on AAAC


I fully support the 'fly naked' security movement. Especially if there are beautiful women involved.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Liberty Ship said:


> From today's Drudge:


If I worked for TSA and SHE came through, I think I would be calling for a more through search :icon_smile:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I think this is a prime example of why people have objections to the full body scanner...


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Yeah, that image barely reveals anything, right?

NSFW -
https://www.thirdtierboard.com/glenndog/sscan1.jpg

It's just a colour inversion in photoshop.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Better than ending up a chicken mcnugget...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

harland said:


> I fully support the 'fly naked' security movement. Especially if there are beautiful women involved.


I'd approve of that.


----------



## mbebeau (Feb 6, 2009)

Sure, fly naked, that would take care of the issue. Until we mandate....cavity searches.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

mbebeau said:


> Sure, fly naked, that would take care of the issue. Until we mandate....cavity searches.


believe me,they won't find anything in there.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*naked truth...*



Howard said:


> believe me,they won't find anything in there.


Oh Howard, pushing carts made it disappear? 

:idea::idea::idea:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

lovemeparis said:


> Oh Howard, pushing carts made it disappear?
> 
> :idea::idea::idea:


made what disappear?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/index.html


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

So,now body scanners can store images of your crotch?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Howard said:


> So,now body scanners can store images of your crotch?


And boobies.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

> A sterling example of their work unfolded at Bakersfield airport in California recently, when TSA agents shut down the entire airport after claiming they had found liquid explosives in what turned out to be five jars of honey. TSA agents even complained of smelling a "strong chemical odor" after they opened the bottles and were taken to hospital!
> 
> According to Reuters, "Kern County Sheriffs deputies, fire crews, FBI agents and members of a joint terrorism task force responded to the scene and spent the day questioning (Francisco) Ramirez before further tests showed that the liquid was honey."
> 
> ...


^ This.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I fly a lot, so can I vote for whatever will _help_ keep me safe?


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

KenR said:


> I fly a lot, so can I vote for whatever will _help_ keep me safe?


Yes you can. But nothing the TSA is currently doing will help keep you safe.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

KenR said:


> I fly a lot, so can I vote for whatever will _help_ keep me safe?


This is un-PC, so grain-of-salt, but what would happen if all the passengers on a plane had to approve/disapprove of all other passengers?

For instance, I know different ethnic groups complain that they are lumped in with arabs or other religions with muslims.

Would a plane load of muslim and/or arab americans fly with any other unknown muslim or arab looking persons they didn't know without frisking/scanning them?

Would they be able to differentiate turks and sikhs; and would they care?

Would they themselves profile themselves based on what villages or families they were from based on historic rivalries and relationships going back centuries? And whether they wore western or traditional clothes? What would they do? What would happen?

What if all the black americans chose to only fly with other black americans for their own safety; by choice - segregating themselves for their own protection? Do they have that right? Could they vote for that?

What if an airline catered to separate demographic groups? Who would choose to fly with 250 arabs or muslims vs. 250 of their own demographic? Would arabs and muslims choose their own? Would arab and muslim americans be safe because the muslim terrorists would choose not to have their own turn on them in mass?

It also fascinates me that for political purposes we engage in class and minority status wars - blacks, hispanics, latinos, women, catholics, christians, mormons, atheists, gays, anti-gunners, pro-lifers, elites, populists, white collar, blue collar, wall street, main street ... yet for our own safety we aren't allowed or supposed to think the same way ... kind of screwed up; isn't it?

Here's an example ... Amish exempt from healthcare reform insurance mandate for religious conscience reasons

My faith teaches interest is a sin ... yet, the IRS charges me Penalties and Interest? Does the government have an obligation to offer me exempt zero-coupon bonds? What about publicly-held companies regulated by the SEC? Shouldn't Proctor & Gamble have to offer me the same accomodation? What about companies that utilize public lands and public air waves?

But, we dare not profile those trying to kill us!!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

ksinc said:


> It also fascinates me that for political purposes we engage in class and minority status wars - blacks, hispanics, latinos, women, catholics, christians, mormons, atheists, gays, anti-gunners, pro-lifers, elites, populists, white collar, blue collar, wall street, main street ... yet for our own safety we aren't allowed or supposed to think the same way ... kind of screwed up; isn't it?


I was taught we were all the same.

Then that we are all different.

Then the same.

Now we are all different again as we celebrate diversity!!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> And boobies.


take me to the scanner.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I think Howard might be filling out an application to work for the TSA soon.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't think Howard could afford the pay cut.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> I think Howard might be filling out an application to work for the TSA soon.


If the pay is good.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I don't think Howard could afford the pay cut.


Why Not?


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Howard the TSA... oh no!*

because you said if pay is good... duh!!!!!

ic12337:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

lovemeparis said:


> because you said if pay is good... duh!!!!!
> 
> ic12337:


Do they pay maximum wage?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Howard, I meant they want to look at *your* boobies. :devil:


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*



ksinc said:


> Howard, I meant they want to look at *your* boobies. :devil:


U mean something is hidden in this thread


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Howard, I meant they want to look at *your* boobies. :devil:


unless it's a hot blond that's doing the scanning,I'm not going to strip for them.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Howard: You won't have to strip for them. With all this new equipment we are purchasing, they will have x-ray vision...just like Superman! If they go for the really fancy stuff, it will also be able to sniff an air sample from the area of your armpits and they will know what brand of underarm deodorant you are using! Ya know, in retrospect, those TSA guys really are under paid!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Howard: You won't have to strip for them. With all this new equipment we are purchasing, they will have x-ray vision...just like Superman! If they go for the really fancy stuff, it will also be able to sniff an air sample from the area of your armpits and they will know what brand of underarm deodorant you are using! Ya know, in retrospect, those TSA guys really are under paid!


Well,I use an anti persperant and sometimes I sweat heavily.


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I was taught we were all the same.
> 
> Then that we are all different.
> 
> ...


Four legs good, two legs bad. → → → Four legs good, two legs better!


----------



## AscotWithShortSleeves (Apr 12, 2009)

Re. the original question: I'm sure I'll probably have to eventually, so the answer is yes.

I personally don't care if someone is ogling my jewels--but it would bother me if they're doing so to any woman in my family. I do not for one second believe that TSA agents are as professional as doctors in terms of not descending into lusting after women they see in the scanner.

So what do we do to stop the next Abdulmutallab?

Dogs are not a bad idea, but they won't detect sealed-up plastic explosives, which is what he had.

Interviewing like Israeli security does is a great idea. Whatever one thinks of Israel, one has to admire its sheer competence in this regard. However, to hire and train intelligent, knowledgable people to do one of the least pleasant jobs in the world would be very expensive. Are Americans willing to pay more per flight to fund this?

Another option is to deter the motivations of terrorists. Why are they attacking our country? Bin Laden has already said what al Qaeda's motivations are. If elements of our foreign policy are jeopardizing our national security and do not benefit our own country, why are we continuing those policies?

Sadly, I don't expect that to change, either.

So what we can all expect is more of the same--additional pointless and degrading procedures that fail to stop terrorists.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/30/florida.tsa.investigation/index.html?hpt=Sbin



> CNN) -- The Transportation Security Administration has launched an internal investigation into an air marshal field office in Florida where supervisors are alleged to have used a crew assignment board to ridicule and keep score on women, gays and minorities, sources told CNN.
> 
> The board, resembling the TV game show "Jeopardy," includes categories such as "pickle smokers," "our gang" and "creatures," which sources said were names used by managers for gay men, African-Americans and lesbians.
> 
> ...


Disgusting. This isn't a case of "one bad apple". These people are all power hungry and rotten. They have never been able to do the job put in front of them. The sooner we stop pretending they are capable of doing so the better off we'll all be.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

harvey_birdman said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/30/florida.tsa.investigation/index.html?hpt=Sbin
> 
> Disgusting. This isn't a case of "one bad apple". These people are all power hungry and rotten. They have never been able to do the job put in front of them. The sooner we stop pretending they are capable of doing so the better off we'll all be.


What a shockingly accurate description of our Congressional membership; certainly more so than of the TSA! It we would stop pretending that any of the current Congressional membership are "capable of doing any better" and just replaced them, as opportunities arise, we would certainly all be better off! :thumbs-up:


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

I can't disagree with that.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Would they arrest if you didn't want a full body scan?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
They wouldn't arrest you but, you might find yourself faced with deciding between submitting to a 'full-on' body cavity search or not flying! However, the choice would be yours. "Paging Special Agent Mary Fatfinger, Agent Fatfinger, we have a job for you!"


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> They wouldn't arrest you but, you might find yourself faced with deciding between submitting to a 'full-on' body cavity search or not flying! However, the choice would be yours. "Paging Special Agent Mary Fatfinger, Agent Fatfinger, we have a job for you!"


Then I wouldn't fly at all,the hell with the people.


----------



## david432598 (Jan 12, 2010)

not willingly


----------



## JayJay (Oct 8, 2007)

I was subjected to a full body scanner a few days ago. It wasn't a comfortable feeling knowing I was being exposed.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

For me,it would feel very uncomfortable too.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

I definitely would. To hell with taking off your shoes, belt, etc.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess a hot girl wouldn't mind stripping off her clothes for a full body scan.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

https://www.prisonplanet.com/exposed-naked-body-scanner-images-of-film-star-printed-circulated.html



> Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

harvey_birdman said:


> https://www.prisonplanet.com/exposed-naked-body-scanner-images-of-film-star-printed-circulated.html


So I guess you have to have a cute body in order to be scanned?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The full body scanner has to go if staff -- both men AND women -- are not going to be professional about it.


----------



## Busterdog (Jan 1, 2010)

I'm all for Body Scanners....... removing one's 'Prince Albert' in full view of the assembled and curious throng before one accesses the metal detector is disconcerting to say the least! Kidding...kidding!

Most airline explosions/hi-jackings caused by terrorists were as a result of scum secreting weapons/explosives about - or in - their person. Profiling and body scanners would undoubtedly have thwarted all the known successful terrorist attacks perpetrated in aircraft.

Bring on the Body Scanners I say, and profiling.... safety and security MUST come before sensitivity.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*The stripping machine...*



Howard said:


> I guess a hot girl *wouldn't mind stripping off* her clothes for a full body scan.


I dont think so... for certain time of the month!!!!:devil:

Geeezzzzz, think again TSA!!!!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

lovemeparis said:


> I dont think so... for certain time of the month!!!!:devil:
> 
> Geeezzzzz, think again TSA!!!!


Hey,It was just a thought.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Busterdog said:


> Bring on the Body Scanners I say, and profiling.... safety and security MUST come before sensitivity.


But that's exactly what they want us to do -- lose our dignity and prove that we're a fascist state.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Jovan said:


> But that's exactly what they want us to do -- lose our dignity and prove that we're a fascist state.


so they want to embarass us too?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bad choice of words -- lose our humanity is more what I mean, along with spying on our own people, using torture, etc.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Jovan said:


> Bad choice of words -- lose our humanity is more what I mean, along with spying on our own people, using torture, etc.
> 
> "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
> -Benjamin Franklin


I don't think a body scanner is a torture device.


----------



## Busterdog (Jan 1, 2010)

Ahh......so one would rather maintain one's dignity and be blown up?
Not me.......ever gathered up body parts?


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Busterdog said:


> Ahh......so one would rather maintain one's dignity and be blown up?
> Not me.......ever gathered up body parts?


You are presenting a false choice.

1. The full body scanners will not work. They present the appearance of security without actually providing security. *You are losing your dignity without gaining any additional security.*

2. No one is being blown up. 40,000 people were killed in auto accidents in America last year. How many were blown up on airplanes? For heaven's sake, there was ONE attempt on Christmas, and he managed to slip through security anyway.

This continual focus on non-existent and marginal threats is exasperating and conducive to a culture of fear which can't weigh risks rationally.

EDIT - and to provide my bona fides, I used to volunteer as a First Responder and have had to gather up a chopped-off arm and have had to deal with people with third degree burns. But your question as to whether or not one has gathered up body parts has no relevance to this discussion.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

_Of course_ I'm not saying body scanners are torture, Howard. Don't be ridiculous.

Does anyone think the PATRIOT Act was actually necessary and got results? Do you think torture was? Basic rights are never overrated, even in war.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Basic rights are never overrated, even in war.


^ This. If we sacrifice the rights of those we don't like, how are we any different from the bad people?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

True, but my other point that most pertained to this thread was that we are so paranoid that our own citizens' rights were put to rest. No search warrants necessary thanks to a contrived acronym!

The other thing I'm getting at is that any REALLY determined terrorist is going to find our weaknesses, learn about the newest security "features" and see a way to sneak on board anyway. Now, whether they'd succeed is a different story, but that kid could just as easily have blown up the plane instead of lighting his pubes on fire. Then there would have been a REAL firestorm about him not being on the "no-fly" list because of the tip from his father. Makes you think, huh?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Busterdog said:


> Ahh......so one would rather maintain one's dignity and be blown up?
> Not me.......ever gathered up body parts?


what are they actually looking at when they see a crotch?


----------



## Busterdog (Jan 1, 2010)

Everything! That's the - if you'll pardon the pun - bone of contention.
Should Body Scanners become standard procedure the qualityof TSA agents staffing the machines will have to be a cut above those currently employed - there should also be separate lanes for male and female - female staff dealing with female passengers, etc.
At least one hopes.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> _Of course_ I'm not saying body scanners are torture, Howard. Don't be ridiculous.
> 
> Does anyone think the PATRIOT Act was actually necessary and got results?
> 
> ...


1) For the scan-ee?? No. For the scan-er, quite possibly!!

2) Yes. It's the DHS and TSA that was a huge waste.

3) Do you mean the waterboarding of three 9/11 co-conspiritors?? Yes.

4) That is correct. The prison stiuation in Iraq was appauling and the guilty were punished.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> If people simply had to fly naked it would (i) expedite security checks, (ii) promote fitness and (iii) reduce the incidence of "appropriate wear for flying" threads on AAAC
> 
> In seriousness, a pilot's license has never looked more appealing.
> 
> DH


If we go this route, we I just want to be sure we have clean seat covers put on after every flight!!!!!!

(There is always the old Archie Bunker solution of giving ewvery passenger a gun).


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> (There is always the old Archie Bunker solution of giving ewvery passenger a gun).


That should scare everybody into not shooting, since nobody would win, except terrorist would like that, because they would win.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) For the scan-ee?? No. For the scan-er, quite possibly!!
> 
> 2) Yes. It's the DHS and TSA that was a huge waste.
> 
> ...


We think alike.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) For the scan-ee?? No. For the scan-er, quite possibly!!
> 
> 2) Yes. It's the DHS and TSA that was a huge waste.
> 
> ...


2) But HOW has it helped?

3) Waterboarding is torture.

4) I agree.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Busterdog said:


> Everything! That's the - if you'll pardon the pun - bone of contention.
> Should Body Scanners become standard procedure the qualityof TSA agents staffing the machines will have to be a cut above those currently employed - there should also be separate lanes for male and female - female staff dealing with female passengers, etc.
> At least one hopes.


Isn't that an invasion of privacy? can't one refuse if he/she doesn't want a scan?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> 2) But HOW has it helped?
> 
> 3) Waterboarding is torture.
> 
> 4) I agree.


2) It is my understanding that the PA, through warrentless (not unwarrented) intercepts of international calls and emails as well as improved, streamlined intra-agency data has been key in several anti-terror success stories. OTOH, the TSA and DHS only added more red tape, expense, and bureaucracy.

3) Not according to law at the time. a) When it does not result in death, b) leave scars or marks or c) Cause excruciating pain presuming that discomfort is not the same as pain.

4) Excellent!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

That's arguing semantics. Waterboarding is still torture.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

What if that person had a disease on his/her body,Do they still have to get the scan?


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Howard said:


> What if that person had a disease on his/her body,Do they still have to get the scan?


They may have the option of taking a "pat down" search instead of the scan, but I don't expect that option to last long.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> That's arguing semantics.


That's what we do!!

It isn't something because someone says so. It must be defined.

There must be a rationale.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

harvey_birdman said:


> They may have the option of taking a "pat down" search instead of the scan, but I don't expect that option to last long.


I don't like getting patted down but if they have to do it so be it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

harvey_birdman said:


> ^ This. If we sacrifice the rights of those we don't like, how are we any different from the bad people?


Exactly and that reminds me of the brilliant Christy Moore song Yellow Triangle from his 1996 Graffiti Tongue album.

We have to watch the watchers and guard the guards and protect everyone and treat all as equal.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

harvey_birdman said:


> ^ This. If we sacrifice the rights of those we don't like, how are we any different from the bad people?


Easy.

We waterboarded 3 people who planned the murder of 3,500 and they murdered 3,500.

Think man, think!!


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Easy.
> 
> We waterboarded 3 people who planned the murder of 3,500 and they murdered 3,500.
> 
> Think man, think!!


So it's all a numbers game to you?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

harvey_birdman said:


> So it's all a numbers game to you?


Where is your moral relativism when you need it??


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

They should start to have full body scanners when you board a train or bus,It would make people feel somewhat safer.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*waterboard all airline passengers*



Howard said:


> They should start to have full body scanners when you board a train or bus,It would make *stupid* people feel somewhat safer.


Fixed. Maybe we could just have a guy in a Mickey Mouse suit at the airport waving and dancing so the Chicken Littles of the world stop fretting that they might fall prey to the infinitesimal risk of airline terrorism.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Fixed. Maybe we could just have a guy in a Mickey Mouse suit at the airport waving and dancing so the Chicken Littles of the world stop fretting that they might fall prey to the infinitesimal risk of airline terrorism.


So,you're nixxing the idea?


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Where is your moral relativism when you need it??


Fair point.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*What comes next?*



Howard said:


> They should start to have full body scanners when you board a train or bus,It would make people feel somewhat safer.


Body scanner "harassement"

https://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/25/uk.heathrow.scanner/index.html?hpt=T2


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

lovemeparis said:


> Body scanner "harassement"
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/25/uk.heathrow.scanner/index.html?hpt=T2


Jesus, what an irritating, unprofessional CNN reporter, first holding up a newspaper then constantly waving her hands around in front of the camera. Talk about distracting. She'd never get a job with the BBC.
Then this ridiculous term "virtually nude" to make the situation sound worse than it is. 
Nude by definition is an absolute, like pregnant, alive or dead you either are or you aren't. There's nothing in between.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. Wait until five years from now, when they have micro-miniaturized the 'full body scanner' screening equipment and outfitted the eyeglasses of TSA employees with same. Why they will be just like Superman, with his x ray vision! Wonder if such will ever be available for private sale?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wow,I can't believe this,How in the hell did the person take the picture?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Then this ridiculous term "virtually nude" to make the situation sound worse than it is.
> Nude by definition is an absolute, like pregnant, alive or dead you either are or you aren't. There's nothing in between.


Actually, "virtaully nude" is the perfect description. "Virtual" here doesn't mean "almost," it means "electronically simulated condition." In the "real" world, you are as clothed as ever, but in the "virtual" world depicted on the screener's monitor, you are completely nude. None of this tells us whether that virtualy nudity is worth the security increase the scanner offers, but there's nothing alarmist or misleading about calling it what it is.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

*Can of warms*

I just got this from a cousin in Manchester, he found it somewhere on the net. There is a twisted logic to it.

THIS IS THE ANSWER!!!

 An engineer (ex-NASA project director) has what I think is the near perfect solution for airport security! 

 Here's a solution to all the controversy over full-body scanners at the airports. 
 Have a booth that you can step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on you. 
 It would be a win-win for everyone, and there would be none of this crap about racial profiling and this method would eliminate a long and expensive trial. Justice would be quick and swift.

Case Closed!

:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I just got this from a cousin in Manchester, he found it somewhere on the net. There is a twisted logic to it.
> 
> THIS IS THE ANSWER!!!
> 
> ...


Do you think It'll work?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Clean-up in aisle #5!


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*go for it*

tell the guard no and opt for the full-cavity body search.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

turban1 said:


> tell the guard no and opt for the full-cavity body search.


But what if someone wants the full cavity body search?


----------

