Someone needs to sue the TSA

[bte]

Also a pic of a woman picture in the full body scan.

[BellaBellucci]

Also a pic of a woman picture in the full body scan.

Yay for Pr0n!!!

~BB~

[lisaparadise]

i dont get it 50 pages of stupiditty all because our governments want to keep us safe you crazzzzzy fuckers

[bte]

i dont get it 50 pages of stupiditty all because our governments want to keep us safe you crazzzzzy fuckers

Not really stupid, valid points was raised on both sides of the argument. Although I don't mind the scans and pat-downs, anytime that will keep the plane from crashing into a building is fine with me.

[lisaparadise]

Not really stupid, valid points was raised on both sides of the argument. Although I don't mind the scans and pat-downs, anytime that will keep the plane from crashing into a building is fine with me.

nope your wrong there is no good arguement for keeping us safe period.

[bte]

nope your wrong there is no good arguement for keeping us safe period.

Yeah I agree with you. I can see why people are up in arms about the photos, the original photos are not bad, but once you edit it to negative, then you can pretty much make out the woman's breasts although no vaggie is visible.

[BellaBellucci]

nope your wrong there is no good arguement for keeping us safe period.

Really now? That's how you roll? You can't even respect the opposition opinion? *sigh*

You don't have to like my opinion, but I'm going to tell you: I know I don't have to fly, but if I must I will make sure I waste as much TSA manpower as possible as a show of passive resistance. They're going to have to search me three times by the time I'm done fucking with them. And yes, I will continue to complain about the policy, because believe you me, if enough people do, the policy will change.

~BB~

[SarahG]

X-ray screening does nothing to protect against explosives being smuggled onto planes using either cargo or persons' bodies.

Petn, the explosive used by the recent cargo bomb plot, the underwear bomber, and IIRC even the shoe bomber does not... I repeat does not... show up on xray in any way.

If you want to screen for Petn you need to use chemical "sniffers." You have someone walk into a chamber, seal it off, puff them with air, and then see what chemicals are detectable in the chamber.

Detonating petn pretty much needs an electrical ignition system, but any such system would be detectable with a standard metal detector. That's one of the ways the cargo plot wasn't well thought out. They were able to find a way to hide the petn by putting it in place of the ink in computer printers, but they had no way to hide their ignition system (...which consisted of a cellphone and a bunch of obviously out of place wires connecting it to the explosives).

All compulsory xraying does is increase people's risk for cancer.

...and maybe making people get a false sense of security.

[trish]

The WhiteHouse 2010 budget request for Homeland Security was $43.6 billion. Talk about a successful mission. A handful of hijacked planes brings down the two tallest skyscrapers in the the U.S., involve us in two wars that have drained our budget for nearly a decade and prompted into existence a brand new money guzzling agency with the teutonic sounding name of Homeland Security. This one-time mission inflicted a giant gash in our economy through which, a decade later, we’re bleeding a green gusher of money. Not just that, but every traveler in the world is now asked to spend two to three extra-hours in the airport, and subject themselves to electromagnetic radiation, and the bored questioning of inspectors while your carry-on is conveyed unguarded to the end of the belt where a stranger mistakes for his own and walks off toward gates unknown. I haven’t even mentioned yet the lives that have been lost and the lives that have been changed forever by the 9/11 attack and the resulting wars. That’s one hell of a payoff for a few terrorist lives lost in a “noble” quest. I’d say the terrorists won that one hands down.

Do the benefits of Homeland Security outweigh the costs? In view of the damage one successful mission can cause, I reluctantly answer yes. Do the benefits of the new scanners outweigh the personal cost to our privacy? Again, given the damage one mission can cause, and given the minimal imposition on our privacy (an anonymous person gets to see an image of our body form and some X-ray images of our carryon luggage) I’d say yes again. The only real question in my mind is the heath issue of exposure to the scanning equipment. I don’t have any really reliable information on those heath risks, but whatever they are they need to be compared to and combined with the higher risk of radiation exposure that is associated with flying at high altitudes.

[dgs925]

valid points was raised on both sides of the argument

nope your wrong

That's Lisa, always giving a very nuanced and mature argument.