CreateDebate


Debate Info

26
18
Intrusion of Privacy Priority for Security
Debate Score:44
Arguments:27
Total Votes:50
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Intrusion of Privacy (16)
 
 Priority for Security (11)

Debate Creator

PrayerFails(11165) pic



Are new body scans at airports an intrusion of privacy or priority for security

Body Scan

Intrusion of Privacy

Side Score: 26
VS.

Priority for Security

Side Score: 18

The new body scans are an overreaching government intrusion of privacy. These images basically induce images of nudity and violent a person's personal privacy.

The more government uses scare tactics for the unproven threat of terrorism, the more private citizens are willing to tolerate this exploitative measure for security and trade liberty for a false sense of safety.

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
3 points

unproven threat of terrorism

Have your views on libertarianism, but an unproven threat of terrorism?

Side: Priority for Security
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

No, this is quite consistant with libertarian views as I understand them - at least the true libertarians, not the Johnny-come-latelies due to Republican fall in popularity. PrayerFails is consistant both in his insanity, and now and then in his insight.

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
1 point

Have your views on libertarianism, but an unproven threat of terrorism?

What?

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

Wow, you sound like a Progressive liberal. Fu&^ing commy bastard :P (up vote, you are correct sir)

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
2 points

How do I sound like a Progressive Liberal?

Is it the fact that I want freedom of intrusion from government?

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
3 points

Yeah, it is retarded, and does not work. Honestly I'm not modest, I would strip naked in real life mid-airport with 0 problem if it gets me to the terminal faster.

But the point is, this scan will slow airports down even more, and the majority of real threats to a flight cannot be detected by this method, or can be easily disguised as something else. So there is no point.

It's yet another thing in a line of devices to make people feel safe with no real life benefit, and honestly I was hoping we had seen the end of this fear-based knee-jerk reaction with the end of Dick's presidency.

On a more humorous-but-good-for-comparison note. If I'm at a Strip Club in Utah, I cannot get a girl to come within 3 feet (or something, whatever their rule, don't drink soda blah blah) of me because Jesus would strike me down with lightning or whatever mormons believe - yet I can get a full feel-up by an overweight security guard at the airport.

Holy shit people are stupid.

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
2 points

Profile the terrorists! ! This is just for show to show how politically correct we are.

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
2 points

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1330857/Terrorists-likely-cancer-airport-body-scanners-scientist-claims.html

There is 1 in 30 million chance of dying by a terrorist bomb, and a 1 in 30 million chance of getting cancer from these machines.

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
2 points

Who wants other people to look at their......what ever they have?Besides who knows if the security officers are disgusting pervs?

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
1 point

I think that the airport security is an invasion of space. They can scan our bodies and if our belt goes through the metal detector, they pat us down. It is way to much. Talk about an invasion of privacy!!!!

Side: Intrusion of Privacy

Those new body scans are an invasion of privacy. I hope those body scans get banned.

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
2 points

While I would disagree with the government being able to, at anytime, scan our bodies in these ways to randomly make sure that we're not caring something, I do not mind this for Airport Security.

I do believe in private property and I will say that the best form of airport security would be that which is accepted by whoever owns the airports, but in order for people to send planes into the air, they must confide with the rules of flight. If you want to go into the air, the government has to trust you.

In these times, terrorists have such scary ways of taking control of planes. We need security now more than ever. Sure, I don't agree with the government coming into our private lives, but when we go into the air, we are accepting that we are now in someone else's land and we must abide by their rules.

X-ray security that is sort of lewd is much better than another hijacking.

Side: Priority for Security
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

I want to watch you debate prayerfails on this. I'm infinitely confused by how the two of you could possibly argue this issue.

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
ThePyg(6743) Disputed
1 point

PrayerFails is far more Libertarian than I am. As I've pointed out before, I'm a mix of many things. I'm just closest to Libertarian.

Side: Priority for Security
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
1 point

its funny how that women who wear the burqa for religious reasons cant be physically scanned below the neck. and don't have to go through the x-ray scan.

is this not degrading the whole purpose of the scanning? who's more likely to be a terrorist. a company of men who returned from boot camp who are then subjected to humiliating groin fondling? or the Muslim women from Sudan who wears a full body burqa and can pass by only having to reveal their face?

Side: Intrusion of Privacy

I don't like my privacy invaded, but I dislike the idea of having another terrorist attack on US soil even more. There are some weapons that cannot be detected by metal detectors.

To avoid both of these issues, I propose having people walk through a bomb proof room, one by one, and if anybody has an explosive device on them, electrical sensors will detonate that device. Think about it, no more terrorist, no more crap about racial profiling, and imagine you are in the airport talking to the people at the front desk and there are no openings, and as you are about to walk away; "Oh! Excuse me. We now have an opening on Flight 223."

Side: Priority for Security
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

Pretty sure if it were that easy, we would already be doing what you suggest.

Side: Priority for Security
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
1 point

We will have to wait for the technology to get more advanced.

Side: Priority for Security
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
0 points

It's a pretty simple equation actually,

You cannot stop ideaology with apparent logic. You cannot stop logic with ideaology.

They are incompatible. More safety measures are the initial logical reaction to ideological threat.

But if one follows the logic, it is an attack on ideology itself which is the most effective course of action.

One cannot stop ideaological attacks with a quick fix. It is a deep, difficult, education-non-military based solution. Any idiot can beat a machine at the end of the day. It's not about technology. This scan would make us no safer.

Side: Intrusion of Privacy
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
1 point

So your are saying that we need to fight ideology with something besides logic? But what? If fighting ideology with logic does not work, as you claim, then the other thing would be to fight ideology with ideology. This would turn into western civilization vs radical Islam.

This scan would make us no safer

It would have a positive psychological effect. People would feel safer because something would be attempted at being done to protect their welfare, and it might influence potential terrorists to not carry out their plans, if there is an increased chance of it not working.

Side: Priority for Security
1 point

in all honesty yes i am not all for naked photos of my self yet its not like they are collecting these photos and getting there rocks off. also i am not for getting near molested . but in the interest of collective security i am fine with it. look at the bomber in san diego on christmas of 09 he flew in and attempted to blow the plan( he failed only because he could not mix chemicals all to well and burned the hell out of himself and started a fire on the plan). he would not of gotten that far due to the scanners.

Side: Priority for Security