should TSA scanners be used for airplane security
for those of you unaware, TSA scanners use sonic scattering to view non-metallic objects that could be hidden in clothing. In the process, it generates a silhouette of a nude body that is visible to the security guards.
Yes- its all for safety
Side Score: 11
|
 |
No- its degrading
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
0
points
If we had the kind of security we do now back in 2001, we wouldn't have had the catastrophe we did. Furthermore, this is not an infringement on anyone's constitutional right to privacy or searches without warrants. No one has to fly on a plane. If it bothers you so much, take a train or a boat. Side: Yes- its all for safety
Would you buy tickets to fly on I'm Feeling Lucky Airlines, which advertises "No pat-down, no magnetometer, no body scan, no waiting"? Side: Yes- its all for safety
|
2
points
I've read that a single back-scatter scanning has the same chance of giving you cancer as a plane has of being blown up by a terrorist. If this is true then the repeated exposure to back scatter emissions many travelers will go though ends up being MORE dangerous then what the back-scatter scanning is meant to prevent. http://merlyn.posterous.com/ Side: No- its degrading
the chance of dying from a terrorist attack may be 1 in 30 million, but the chance of BEING in a terrorist attack is about 1 in 9.3 million http://www.sixwise. which is about 3 times more likely than the odds of getting cancer Side: Yes- its all for safety
2
points
2
points
1
point
It doesn't deal with the issue. Anyone with something to hide is going to opt out of the scan and go through the groping (I mean pat down) in hopes they miss something. In trying to be so PC we are putting our health and privacy to the side. I find this disturbing. Side: No- its degrading
You realize that the officers do not see an image of a nude body. They see an image such as this http://media.brainz.org/uploads/2010/11/ ooh, sexy. God forbid a public official be able to know my outline and partial skeletal structure! And in addition to safety benefits of seeing more than metal materials, the days of emptying your pockets would come to an end. If you are wearing a prosthetic, have a medal implant, or even are wearing ear rings, they would show up on the scan as those objects- rather than sounding off the medal detector and being mistaken for weapons until after the wearer has been pat down. Side: Yes- its all for safety
"It has yet to catch anyone or anything" half of the drug busts made in the past year were because of TSA scanners "This sort of security has never worked." Im not sure what you mean by 'this sort of security'. Do you mean security that detects things under clothes? Because I do not know of many terrorist threats that involved a fanatic walking with a gun in hand. Maybe if you articulated yourself, had any evidence to support your claim, or even had a theoretical example I would be more inclined to agree. Side: Yes- its all for safety
My point exactly. Thre is nothing that can be done to stop terrorism only a change in foreign policy or whatever else their pissed off about. But they've cleverly reallocated the finance to support another casue. In this case money earmarked for catching alleged terrorists is being swindled to beef up anti drugs squads. Your no safer becasue the terrorists are getting away (unless they were state sponsored in the first place) and their looking to catch drug dealers instead. No terrorist has been caught and they've laid most of the profiling staff off at the airport after three years of catching no one - don't get sidetracked. Side: No it's pointless and expensive
1
point
|
