Crosswords0 min ago
body scanners, do we have any privacy ?
Answers
All your basic rights are being removed as 'not important' in today's world. And it seems folk are happy to see it happen.
11:57 Wed 03rd Mar 2010
You're right, AOG. Although it appears you are unaware that sniffer dogs are currently used in airports, all I know of your flying experiences is that you were in the RAF long before the current problems with terrorism arose. Additionally I know nothing about sniffer dogs, so right again. I only know that the article I read was written by someone who does, and he was making the point that whilst body scanners cannot detect explosive substances hidden inside the body, sniffer dogs can. However, now I've spoken to you, I can only assume he's wrong, so why don't you give us the benefit of your wisdom and experience?
If it's a matter of human rights then surely my right to have as many security precautions as is available to allow me to travel safely equals that of the individual who refuse the scan?
So who's rights outweigh who's?
Maybe the final call could be based on a financial basis? Ie the insurance costs for the airline.
Or a majority basis? Let the passangers vote, and if more people want to carry out the security than don't then so be it.
Or maybe we could base it on the human rights of the guys on the ground who get several hundred tons of burning metal fall on their house. Or the guys who have to do crash recovery and spend weeks finding human body parts scattered over a large area.
Security is never single layered, and if this system discourages or prevents even a single attack then it has worked.
So who's rights outweigh who's?
Maybe the final call could be based on a financial basis? Ie the insurance costs for the airline.
Or a majority basis? Let the passangers vote, and if more people want to carry out the security than don't then so be it.
Or maybe we could base it on the human rights of the guys on the ground who get several hundred tons of burning metal fall on their house. Or the guys who have to do crash recovery and spend weeks finding human body parts scattered over a large area.
Security is never single layered, and if this system discourages or prevents even a single attack then it has worked.
-- answer removed --
Terrorists will always try to succeed in their backward aims. It's everyones job to make it harder for them. I am on aircraft virtually daily n if that means I queue up, get searched or scanned then fine as it increases my safety, along with fellow travellers. Lax laws, human rights and do gooders have made things easier for terorists. If people don't like the security element then catch a boat (security is going the same way there too) or stay at home n whine about how things used to be!
AOG, this rather gives it away. //Wouldn't you bother about sniffer dogs sniffing around your privates then?// If you knew that sniffer dogs were already used with passengers, you wouldn't have asked that question.
Are you going to tell us why the article I read was wrong then?
Mani, If we're talking civil liberties, then I claim my right to travel confident in the knowledge that my fellow passengers aren't carrying equipment capable of blowing the plane up.
Are you going to tell us why the article I read was wrong then?
Mani, If we're talking civil liberties, then I claim my right to travel confident in the knowledge that my fellow passengers aren't carrying equipment capable of blowing the plane up.
-- answer removed --
I can't say whether mani meant to be blunt or not, but Muslim women are not supposed to show their private areas to anyone except their husbands. Whether you can see the fine detail on a body scanner or just the outlines - to keep us all secure from people who shove explosives up their cavities - I couldn't say, I don't know how much the scanner shows or if it's just outlines.
Naomi, I wouldn't expect to much in the way of explanations or apologies from certain posters if I were you. Seems there is no minimum IQ requirement to post in answerbank. Nor would I suspect one who is a frequent flyer of correctional facilities to be a stranger to those responsible for carrying out full body scans of a significantly more intrusive nature than are standard procedure at air terminals, no matter how opposed to them they claim to be.
It reads to me that Mani was just putting his feelings in such a way that their point could not be missed. Some seem happy, keen even, to be exposed to the pervs taking the "lets see folk in the nude whether they like it or not" job, whilst others find the whole thing offensive, and are having to hear folk agree to this being imposed on them.
To answer the body search question posed by B00, such searches are not done randomly but only when there is cause for suspicion, so has no bearing on this issue. But yes such searches do deny a person's rights, but can be justified since the evidence will have been sufficient to give cause.
To reanswer the "if you don't want to be scanned don't fly" comment, Why should someone have to accept any abuse the authorities can dream up just to be able to fly. It is totally unacceptable. What is "simples" is to sling out those who impose this sort of thing and give people back their sense of worth. What is "simples" is if you don't find an activity safe, then don't do it. given that flying is the safest form of transport these OOT "precautions" merely create & feed an unwarranted fear.
Oh and if there was a line for being scanned and one for not being scanned I'm confident the not scanned line will be at least as long as the scanned one. After all that is the normal situation anyway, or was until now.
To answer the body search question posed by B00, such searches are not done randomly but only when there is cause for suspicion, so has no bearing on this issue. But yes such searches do deny a person's rights, but can be justified since the evidence will have been sufficient to give cause.
To reanswer the "if you don't want to be scanned don't fly" comment, Why should someone have to accept any abuse the authorities can dream up just to be able to fly. It is totally unacceptable. What is "simples" is to sling out those who impose this sort of thing and give people back their sense of worth. What is "simples" is if you don't find an activity safe, then don't do it. given that flying is the safest form of transport these OOT "precautions" merely create & feed an unwarranted fear.
Oh and if there was a line for being scanned and one for not being scanned I'm confident the not scanned line will be at least as long as the scanned one. After all that is the normal situation anyway, or was until now.
