Full Body Scans at the Airport - Yay or Nay?

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 11:54am

Just curious how everyone feels about this.

I personally wouldn't object to having one, and I'd certainly prefer it over a strip search.

Is it an invasion of privacy? Probably. But in this case, I just don't care.

[StockardFan]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 12:27pm

It's sort of creepy, but if we have to do it, we have to do it.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 12:38pm

I really don't care. And I don't understand those who are shy about it. I mean, really? I have no problem with TSA employees looking at my body (virtually) because if they do that all day, they won't go home and remember your everyday non-terrorist flyer.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 12:40pm

I'd rather they do that than have the guy next to me set his junk on fire. I hate when that happens.

[Weez]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 12:48pm

I think it would just be really nice if we could trust everyone to behave themselves on flights. None of this metal detector, x-ray, no liquids, minimal hand luggage malarkey. Just everyone behaving in a nice fashion and flying sensibly and safely.

But we can't trust everyone, so full body scans it is. Yay. *sighs*

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 12:55pm

Personally it doesn't bother me. I am not particularly shy about my body. We're all humans, we all have basically the same pieces in the same places, so I don't really care who sees it.

That said, I can definitely understand why people would be uncomfortable. I am also a little concerned about use of the images. I know they say the images aren't going to be stored, but it wouldn't be that hard for a TSA employee to store images for personal use if they so choose.

[James885]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 1:06pm

It doesn't bother me either. I guess it's just a sign of the times we live in. I'd rather deal with the full body scans if it makes for a safer travel experience. As long as the images are immediately deleted and aren't saved, I don't have a problem.

Updated On: 1/3/10 at 01:06 PM

[romantico]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 1:29pm

I'm not crazy about the idea. I don't mind being patted down a couple times or even having my luggage searched extensively. Besides, I had heard their could be some health hazards with these X-ray scanners. What happens if people who fly a lot start getting sick? Have these been out long enough for us to test properly? With all the money they are willing to put into these (and I am sure the company who makes them wants us to hurry up and get these in airports right away) I doubt much has been spent on researching if there are any side effects.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/284951

Of course, I guess it's better than the solution the nut on Fox News has come up with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXfnjkxBTrk

Updated On: 1/3/10 at 01:29 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 1:44pm

I am terribly modest about anyone seeing my body and I think they can actually see your "parts" on that screen. I really don't know what I'm going to do.

[zunit1234]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 1:44pm

If it makes airports more secure, I say yes. It's kind of an easy thing to do to help make planes safer.

some people are acting as if the old woman running the TSA scanner is operating a hardcore triple x-ray porn website praying on unsuspecting and jet-lagged passengers. come on. no big.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 1:45pm

I would feel more comfortable with a scan than a strip search because the machine would scan me and I could just block the thought in my mind of somebody looking at me, whereas with a strip search, I would feel very physically uncomfortable and I would be unable to block the thought from my head. Also, nobody would really want to save the scans of me because I'm not one who many people would like to look at.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 1:52pm

What bothers me is that all these new measures were put into place because the red flags about this terrorist were ignored and security people didn't do their jobs.

If this guy were detected sooner, and there was plenty of evidence for it, then we wouldn't be going through this.

[zunit1234]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 1:55pm

"I am terribly modest about anyone seeing my body and I think they can actually see your "parts" on that screen. I really don't know what I'm going to do."

I saw a little segment about it on the news and the image seemed rather fuzzy and not too graphic at all.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 1:57pm

Eventually, we would have. They would have adapted & done an end around anything we had in place. They learn from their mistakes but we do not.

We annouce what we are doing security wise on any news & media outlet we can thereby giving them this info free . NYC random searches are a joke. If someone with a bomb entered a station & saw there was a possibility of being searched (after the cops stop talking amonst themselves) all they need do is walk to the next station.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 2:09pm

Well, OK, but only if we get dinner first...

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 2:13pm

"We annouce what we are doing security wise on any news & media outlet we can thereby giving them this info free."

That's the price you pay for "freedom of speech", Roxy. Right? Or does, freedom of speech only apply to what you believe should be spoken?

And do you seriously believe, that ALL security plans are announced? That nothing is withheld? That there are no secrets?

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 2:13pm

My fake elbow sets off the bells and whistles every damn time.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 2:32pm

zunit, I may have seen the same coverage, and I noticed that they placed a black square over the man's privates for the tv, which led me to believe that they could actually see it! I hope I'm wrong.

[zunit1234]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 2:35pm

That was the one I saw! But it was really blurry so I feel like the black square was just to be politically correct. But then again, I could be wrong, haha.

[tazber]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 2:45pm

Kinky. I'm all for it as long as they use protection.

[wonkit]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 3:14pm

Yes vote from me, as I would rather be embarrassed than dead. But the point is not to let terrorists on the plane in the first place. With this guy, in addition to the watch list and his father's visits to the US embassy (duh - ), he had (if I understand the facts right) bought a one-way ticket close to the flight date with cash, had no luggage, had been denied a UK visa, and had a faulty passport, and still got on the plane. Did they really need a body scan to be suspicious of him?

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 3:19pm

Exactly, wonkit. that's what I was saying in my post also.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 3:25pm

Hey Just

You are free to say what you want. You are the ones who want to censor free speech. I never advocated or called for the death of someone who did not agree with me . Say what you want as will .

How is calling for Limbaugh's death differ from the fundamentalists calling for death of someone who disagrees with them?

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 3:40pm

HEY ROX!

"You are free to say what you want. You are the ones who want to censor free speech."

Uh, could you point to an example of where I ever censored anyone's free speech. Or even attempted to. I've disagreed with many, and have expressed that disagreement many times, but I've never told anyone to STFU. It's actually impossible for me to censor anyone on this board, since I don't have the power to delete or edit anyone's post.

""How is calling for Limbaugh's death differ from the fundamentalists calling for death of someone who disagrees with them?"

Can you point to where I called for Limbaugh's death? I'm absolutely positive I DID NOT call for anyone's death. But, I'd love to see the post where you think I did. And then I'd like to have a sip of whatever it is your drinking, it seems to be a pretty powerful hallucinogenic.

Updated On: 1/3/10 at 03:40 PM

[LaurenB]

Posted: 1/3/10 at 3:52pm

I don't care if I'm scanned, as long as the TSA agents don't snicker as I'm going through. I wonder if they show things such as... Depends. LOL.

Apparently those machines can be calibrated and have been dialed back so that they are not as revealing as they can be.

They could have 2 options --- one for those who don't mind being scanned, and one for old fashioned pat-downs. I saw on the news where the scans would violate some people's religion (like revealing too much of a woman).