Body Scanners - A'port staff to giggle at your tiny penis.

It's of course silly to say that security trumps privacy every time. There's always a weighing of security, privacy and convenience in those cases. I am not sure if the value of those scanners outdoes the inconvenience, especially since they are apparently beatable rather easy, and terrorists tend to be nothing if not determined. A lot of the rules related to airport security do seem knee-jerky though and should probably be evaluated again.

Really, though, the biggest douchery of all those, are express lines for 1st Class Flyers. It's just wrong.

Originally posted by Ordo

If you want to be safe from everything? Kill yourself.

I would rather Kill Everything.

I'm a survivor.

I can't wait to finally have a legal reason to show airport staff my wiener.

the stewardesses aren't the ones running the scanners.

Why are people so afraid of getting blown-up by crazy bloodlusted towel-heads? To hell with these f*ckin machines.

Originally posted by Blinky
Why are people so afraid of getting blown-up by crazy bloodlusted towel-heads? To hell with these f*ckin machines.

rx1ksnYiRS8&feature=related

But then again, why worry about terrorists when we have people like this around?

FVms5xxwpEE&feature=related

Great, the government sunk to a new low by making X-Rays so powerful, security can see what you hide behind your trousers. I swear, the government worrying about terrorists is like an everyday house woman worrying about her house getting dirty, they worry way too freaking much and should be smacked so they can regain their sanity. The security staff (who I may add are technically strangers) are legalized to look at everyone's (even childrens) genitalia? The government is stupid.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
I swear, the government worrying about terrorists is like an everyday house woman worrying about her house getting dirty, they worry way too freaking much and should be smacked so they can regain their sanity.

😍

Originally posted by Blinky
Why are people so afraid of getting blown-up by crazy bloodlusted towel-heads? To hell with these f*ckin machines.

Well we can expect to see a rise in cancer cases when these things are in every airport, lets play the cancer lottery. Sucks for the people who travel on a regular basis, being hit with a full body x-ray every month will guarantee problems for them in the future.

Originally posted by Magee
Well we can expect to see a rise in cancer cases when these things are in every airport, lets play the cancer lottery. Sucks for the people who travel on a regular basis, being hit with a full body x-ray every month will guarantee problems for them in the future.

My safety concern while flying isn't terrorists. It's the rich airline executives not paying their pilots or staff and cutting back on maintenance to the point that planes are crashing and a recent study found a shocking amount of planes that flew last year were not safe and should never have been flying. Not to mention being left on the tarmac for 8 hours while they dick around and don't let you off the plane or having TSA workers steal my bags.

No, the real terrorist I'm worried about actually make up the majority of terrorists in America. Some of them are the nation's wealthiest people and terrorize us financially while the others work on the local level and have swastika tattoos and beat the crap out of people and shoot abortion providers and blow up federal buildings and get arrested for stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that they were buying off of sympathetic people in the military. What demographic group is this? Oh yeah, white Christian males.

Originally posted by inimalist
polymers, not ceramics. The Glock is made of plastic, not of clay

not to mention, ceramic knives show up on x ray, and the glock has enough metal pieces to be detected. This doesn't address the fact that any amunition would be detectable.

That Glock you are referring to is fictional, from a film. I'm referring to the "one-shot-only" guns from the USSR that were rumored to have been smuggled/used for assasination jobs.

The portion of my post you quoted was referring to the improvements in ceremics since that time (what...20-30 years later?)

Originally posted by inimalist
At this point, there is no reliable evidence to suspect that "invisible weapons" are anything but a hollywood myth. This is especially true of guns, as I'm sure one could fashion a shiv out of something that scanners couldn't pick up.

Which is why I said this:

Originally posted by dadudemon
A quick trip to a university library would result in all the knowledge needed to manufacture a weapn WITHOUT metal in it.

Currently, the ceremic knives are made with metal in them so that they show up on X-ray scanners at airports.

Also, you don't plan for only the known in security: you have to account for the unknown. This is why I've been "preachin'" better or more efficient "sniffer" technologies.

And, the body scanner would work to pick up these hiddens "invisible to x-rays..for the most part" weapons. Which is why I got onto this dicussion. I was talking about the unlikelyhood of someone actually possessing such an item. Ushgarak furthered that point by saying that they are more interested in body count. So a gun invisible to X-ray would not be the first choice of a terrorist. It would result in a very low body count and, therefore, result in a rather useless terror attempt. (And just as Ush stated, I don't mean to be so frank/morbid about this.)

My thing was wondering why we are investing in a "solution" that doesn't really address things as well as technologies already being used.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Ushgarak furthered that point by saying that they are more interested in body count. So a gun invisible to X-ray would not be the first choice of a terrorist. It would result in a very low body count and, therefore, result in a rather useless terror attempt. (And just as Ush stated, I don't mean to be so frank/morbid about this.)

Why would it result in a low body count? The point of the gun wouldn't be to kill people. It would be to get control of the plane in order to crash it. No hijacker is ever going to get away with taking over a plane using box cutters and fake bombs again. A gun might still pose enough of a fear inducement in passengers that they don't challenge the hijackers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Currently, the ceremic knives are made with metal in them so that they show up on X-ray scanners at airports.

Surely you mean metal detectors. Strong ceramics would be dense enough to block X-rays.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That Glock you are referring to is fictional, from a film.

no. The first glock, the 17, had many plastic parts, which slowed its adoption because people were skeptical of it. Modern models are still made with many polymer parts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm referring to the "one-shot-only" guns from the USSR that were rumored to have been smuggled/used for assasination jobs.

ceramic guns were prototyped by both America and the USSR during the cold war. There is no reason to believe any of these were more successful than their psychic spies.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The portion of my post you quoted was referring to the improvements in ceremics since that time (what...20-30 years later?)

yes, the vast improvements in a 10 thousand year old technology. Not to be glib, but I don't think clay is really a good option. If we are talking about potential weapons made by huge nations to avoid airport scanners, a polymer or carbon nano-tube option would be way better in the modern world.

Originally posted by jaden101
Why would it result in a low body count?

How many shots would get off before the Marshall would gun him down? He can't carry very many bullets on his person. Lights out, show's over, etc.

The person next to him/her would also notice him loading a gun...

bla bla bla

There's a bunch of reason's you don't use a small gun as a terror weapon. It's unlikely that someone would even get any sort of gun on a plane...or even think about it (as others have pointed out, as there's much "better" ways of terror out there.)

Originally posted by jaden101
The point of the gun wouldn't be to kill people. It would be to get control of the plane in order to crash it. No hijacker is ever going to get away with taking over a plane using box cutters and fake bombs again. A gun might still pose enough of a fear inducement in passengers that they don't challenge the hijackers.

I would think that the people of the plane would freak the eff out and literally tear that guy apart. Then, the people that died from gunshots would be hailed as heroes by the media, bla bla bla. It might actually do worse for the terrorists than better.

But what if those crafty terrorists snuck in a 16th century key gun like the one shown on Pawn Stars? They could do some serious damage with a concealed weapon that requires you to light a fuse and fires a low velocity projectile 90 seconds after you pull the trigger!

Originally posted by dadudemon
They already have an extensive bio-warfare detection system in the US postal system. Anthrax's days are pretty much done in the USPS.

The one that takes over an hour to work?

I used to work in one of the USPS plants. The billion dollar machine takes an hour and a half to identify anything. By that time, the letter has passed through hands of about a hundred people, never mind the people on the docks that would have handled the letter before it went through the machine.

It was a running joke at safety meetings.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I would think that the people of the plane would freak the eff out and literally tear that guy apart. Then, the people that died from gunshots would be hailed as heroes by the media, bla bla bla. It might actually do worse for the terrorists than better.

I don't think they would. The best that people did when the guy tried to blow up a plane on Christmas day was tackle him AFTER he already failed to detonate a bomb and set himself on fire.

As much as people would like to think they'd be brave when a gun is stuck in their face....they wouldn't.

Granted that in a hijacking attempt post 9/11 there would be a higher chance of people acting because they'd immediately think it's better to do something if you're going to die anyway.

As for the air marshal point...Other countries have planes...Other countries don't have air marshals or even an equivalent. Terrorists do attack other countries.