FFTS
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 11:38 AM | |
|
Tough Choice... Nude Photo or sexual assault?
Here's is the choice that is happening in the good old US of A and other countries around the world.
You want to fly and you are given the following choice.
A) Subject yourself to a dose of unsafe radiation (John Hopkins university report) and having a detailed photo of your naked body stored with the
authorities.
B) Subject yourself to a physical search including touching your genitals firmly with the palm of a strangers hands outside or INSIDE your
clothing.
Now consider this question when it applies to your Wife/Partner, but now its a male touching her between the legs and squeezing her breasts?. How
about having to lift her skirt in public? How would your decision alter?
Now consider the same for your 6 yr old child
What about your disabled child, 80 yr old mother in her wheelchair?
Would you still fly?
It is a sexual assault if touched in this way by a police officer on a routine search. So how would you feel if the person touching up your family is
just a civilian?
Now remember... It's not just the USA its just worst there and they are imposing rules on airlines that wish to fly into the U.S. Last week
there was a nude demonstration in a German airport. Things have got that bad in the U.S. that this subject this week was the most searched subject on
the whole of the planet in Google trends most searched rankings. There is also a mass movement for an opt out day on the 24th November where anyone
flying is urged to opt out of the scanners as they can't physically Pat down" everyone who is flying..
SEE HERE and
HERE
here's just a couple of interesting facts.
Michael Chertoff the head of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) who purchased the scanners was the CEO of one of the two companies who
supply them and a paid consultant to the other 
These scanners and pat downs have NEVER caught anyone with explosives before boarding a plane!
The Christmas day bomber who had had explosives in his underwear did not have a passport and was escorted onto the flight by a man who then left the
plane.
Where would you draw the line with your civil liberties and freedom in exchange for your government to keep you safe from this nasty Terrorism?
Whatever my view you are welcome to yours but for those open minded enough maybe start checking out the facts before the knee jerk reaction.
Well it is winter so we need something to have a good debate about on here hey hahaha.
Power to the Sheeple!!!!
Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 11:59 AM | |
|
I agree, these scanners are a total invasion of civil liberties and I don't agree with their use at all. I very much doubt it will stop
determined terrorists, but it will prove humiliating and potentially harmful in the longer term for innocent passengers.
Benjamin Franklin's famous quote couldn't be more apt: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety".
|
|
|
UncleFista
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 12:01 PM | |
|
It's neither a nude photo, nor sexual assault.
The vast majority of scanners in use only show vague outlines, TBH if you're gonna get a stiffy over that you need locking up for safety's
sake anyway.
As for sexual assault, I've never heard of anyone "agreeing" to be searched, being called sexual assault.
No-one "needs" to fly...
Tony Bond / UncleFista
Love is like a snowmobile, speeding across the frozen tundra.
Which suddenly flips, pinning you underneath.
At night the ice-weasels come...
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 12:14 PM | |
|
LOL! Exaggerated load of bollards, much?
Whenever you see the word 'sheeple', you know you're reading utter tripe written by some paranoid, government-hating, conspiracy
theorist, woo-woo nutjob living 'off the grid' in a trailer wearing a tinfoil hat.
|
|
|
FFTS
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 12:17 PM | |
|
quote:
Originally posted by UncleFista
It's neither a nude photo, nor sexual assault.
The vast majority of scanners in use only show vague outlines, TBH if you're gonna get a stiffy over that you need locking up for safety's
sake anyway.
As for sexual assault, I've never heard of anyone "agreeing" to be searched, being called sexual assault.
No-one "needs" to fly...
Quite right.. If you refuse the search you are refused the right to get on your flight... and face a fine of $11000!! great choice hey
And maybe some civilian security agents may "get a stiffy" while their touching up your wife and children? Would you agree and stand and
watch?
Stay informed ARTICLE HERE
Scan photos and printouts
Each to their own but NOBODY would go near my little girl of 6!
Chris.
|
|
|
jossey
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 12:27 PM | |
|
ok i like your thinking but there is more than one view on this.
Imagine another underwear bomber episode on a flight with your wife and child or family.
but in this case they found the explosives because of a seach of peoples Genital area and some uncomfortable touching.
They stop him and save lives.
would you be happy with being searched prior to the flight in that improper way?
You are agreeing to the terms by using that form of transport and entering that country.
i work in Computer Data security and im searched a lot and sometimes in a uncomfortable way. but its part of my job and it keeps me safe in the long
run.
This is why i understand that they do what they see fit to keep us safe on the flights on entering Government Buildings ETC.
Dave
|
|
|
sickbag
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 12:30 PM | |
|
I can't think of a single reason why I'd want to got to the 'States in the first place, so this doesn't affect me really, not
even for business reasons.
When I go on holiday I usually stay in the UK (what other country has accessible history and culture the same as ours?), but if I do want to go abroad
in Europe then I load up the bike and take that. Or the car if taking more than two of us. Ferries are absolutely pain-free compared to planes -
there's no personal searches for everyone, no expensive short-cuts through boarding, no sitting in seats 6 inches too narrow, no breathing
recycled air, no. . . . well, you get the idea.
Nope, you can keep your long-haul flights to the most paranoid and opressive nation on earth, I'd rather enjoy my limited time away from home
and work.
Finally back on the job!
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 12:34 PM | |
|
FFTS, They'll never let you fly mate... 'cos they'll never find anybody willing to "touch you up". Have you ever thought
of a job writing for the Daily Mail? With a stylelike that you'd fit right in.
Amate of mine works on security at Manchester airport. He's tested the body scanners and says it's a very blurry pictury. They got a few
cabin crew to volenteer for the tests. He recons searches and scans in themselves are near pointless. He does say the psyhcological profiling done by
guys watching the CCTV while you go through it works. It flagged up both the shoe bomber and the underpant bomber but they couldn't find any
other reason to search them without a court order. The airlines insisted they be let fly as the delay was holding up the planes!
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
FFTS
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 12:39 PM | |
|
YEP!! ANYTHING to keep you safe hey 
What if a nasty terrorist decides to detonate while he's next to me and hundreds of others in the queue before the pat down/Scan?.. Ohhh..
didn't think of that!
Ahhh.. I wonder why soft targets and cruise ships with thousands of passengers on aren't the target? Wouldn't that be much easier and get
more headlines?
When was the last time terrorism affected YOUR life?
They have NEVER caught anyone trying to board a plane with explosives or prevented anything at the boarding point. The so called underwear bomber had
no passport and was escorted onto the plane by a smart dressed man who left.
[HERE
Be scared folks be VERY VERY scared.. there's a terrorist under your bed... hehe.
[Edited on 17/11/10 by FFTS]
Chris.
|
|
|
PSpirine
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 12:55 PM | |
|
quote:
Originally posted by FFTS
Be scared folks be VERY VERY scared.. theres a terrorist under your bed... hehe.
Damn it how did you know! I told Petr to stay still and not make any sounds when they come to search the property! 
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 12:56 PM | |
|
[Devil's advocate mode] I think the term 'sexual assault' is a bit strong and quite frankly it is just exaggerating the situation in
the same way the media often does. Wouldn't you prefer to be on the cautious side if you were under any sort of threat?
You are inferring that security staff are not behaving in a professional manner while carrying out their duties. Speaking from experience I can say
that all staff are carefully vetted and trained before they are allowed anywhere near a passenger. I had to have an extensive search into my past when
I did some security work for a major airport, and believe me when I say they are very thorough. After you have been trained to 'pat down'
passengers it becomes purely part of the job you are paid to do and I have never encountered anyone who actually enjoys the experience, except maybe
for a few passengers!
You would trust an NHS doctor to examine your daughter don't you? Why not another trained professional?
[Edited on 17-11-10 by RazMan]
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
UncleFista
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 01:04 PM | |
|
It's a typical exaggerated load of old blx.
When I read a post which starts with a false binary argument I either think "teenager" or "tin foil hat wearer".
The title is designed to inflame and bypass the logic centres of the brain.
Fortunately most people on locostbuilders are better than that.
By the reasoning of the title, the last time me and the missus slept together it was rape
My 83 yr old grandma and 60 yr old mum both fly regularly and neither could give a flying toss whether they're scanned or searched, it's
the price you have to pay nowadays to fly.
As for "What if a nasty terrorist decides to detonate while he's next to me and hundreds of others in the queue before the pat
down/Scan?.. Ohhh.. didn't think of that!"
I'd imagine security professionals have thought of exactly that, they're profesionals who think of things like that for a living.
Better a few 10's of people are injured rather than a few hundred exploding in mid-air and raining down on a city/town somewhere...
[Edited on 17/11/10 by UncleFista]
Tony Bond / UncleFista
Love is like a snowmobile, speeding across the frozen tundra.
Which suddenly flips, pinning you underneath.
At night the ice-weasels come...
|
|
|
FFTS
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 01:11 PM | |
|
You would trust an NHS doctor to examine your daughter don't you? Why not another trained professional? Check out the people the TSA employ.
Check out the TSA drugs party that they investigated. Check out the LA TSA agent arrested for going around the airport shouting "I'm god
and I have the power" Maybe you would be happy to let him touch up your daughter as he was vetted after all. As for sexual assault being wrong..
Well it is illegal for anyone to touch the genital area without consent it's sexual assault, so because you agree on behalf of your children
then its NOT anymore?
You would put a security guard on the same level as a doctor? WoW!!
These so called Enhanced pat downs are now starting to feel the actual the genitals.
Not many actually answering which choice YOU would allow for you and your family.
Would you scan them? Watch them get touched in the genital and breasts? or refuse both?
By the way.. there is still a certain amount selected for a enhanced pat down even AFTER a scan.
Given the choices what would you opt for?
[Edited on 17/11/10 by FFTS]
[Edited on 17/11/10 by FFTS]
Chris.
|
|
|
scudderfish
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 01:36 PM | |
|
|
|
|
mad4x4
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 01:42 PM | |
|
quote:
Originally posted by FFTS
You would trust an NHS doctor to examine your daughter don't you? Why not another trained professional? [Edited on 17/11/10 by FFTS]
Yes I may let a Trained proffessional, (medically trained) if there was a medical reason. But some PLEB that works in an Airport - Doubt it.
Oh and the point of "it's your choice" - Not always when we have to travel for WORK 
Point to Note ->
ter·ror·ize [ter-uh-rahyz]
–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.
1. to fill or overcome with terror.
2. to dominate or coerce by intimidation.
3. to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings.
FEAR - Thats what the governement and Airports play on
[Edited on 17/1111/10 by mad4x4]
Scot's do it better in Kilts.
MK INDY's Don't Self Centre Regardless of MK Setting !
|
|
|
Dusty
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 01:46 PM | |
|
I accept you have a problem with this. To be more convincing to me you would have to suggest the real reason security is doing this. I don't
find the suggestion that the security industry just got super pervy and horny very convincing nor the idea that it's some security CEO in
America lining his pockets.
I do find the idea that they are trying to make flying safer more convincing. Yes it's a pain when you fly. I object strongly to the personal
intrusion, invasion of privacy and embuggerance factor but accept that if I want to fly safely I want all my fellow passengers searched just the
same.
The argument that they don't find bombs might just signify the preventive effect of these procedures. The failures, ie the underpants bomber,
show that circumvention of these procedures is what puts us at risk.
Accept current security if you want to fly.
|
|
|
FFTS
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 01:47 PM | |
|
Well I think that's got things going nicely so I shall leave you too hopefully keep posting your valuable opinions and hopefully some have at
least bothered to research a subject rather than comment on no knowledge of it. If you think it's NOT happening then go search to back up your
belief?
As for the original question I shall leave it worded like this and see what you would choose. The TSA's procedure is to request a full body scan
from your child. You disagree as you have whatever concerns for health or privacy. They then have to explain to you "I will have to conduct an
Enhanced pat down and this will require me to touch the childs genital areas with the palm of my hand. Do you give your consent to this sir?"
Think about it.. What would you reply.. YES or not be allowed to fly and face a $11000 fine?
If you don't believe it then just get searching or click the links in previous posts.
Have fun everyone
[Edited on 17/11/10 by FFTS]
Chris.
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 01:52 PM | |
|
I'm obviously not putting security staff and doctors on the same level - just stating that they are both professionals who take their jobs very
seriously indeed. Think of other people who could abuse their professional position when it comes to your family's intimacy - your dentist? your
clothes shop attendant? how many people do you want to imagine is a pervert?
If a threat exists, or is even just feared to exist, I am happy to make these adjustments to my travel arrangements and that goes for my wife, mother
in law or my sons and grandchildren, after all it is only a small intrusion of our privacy but a huge contribution to our safety.
I suppose it just depends on which side of the fence you are standing.
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
FFTS
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 02:09 PM | |
|
Just had to do this one!
If you believe in this all surrounding terrorism then consider this.
The whole point of terrorism is to terrorise a civilian population. The majority of us don't fly and those who do is VERY infrequently. Look at
Islamabad and the amount of suicide bombings there on a daily basis. Look at the targets. Markets, shopping centres, public transport ie buses and
trains, government offices. All the things we use or go near daily that would REALLY terrorise us and change the way we live.. all soft targets!.
Notice how the IRA wanted to terrorised the population and it was the same targets NO attempts on aircraft even when all this enhanced security
wasn't around and it would have been easy.
In my honest opinion the public at large are the victims of terrorism but not by the men in the caves
I'm done so have fun
As for those who don't like my own views and fall back on a personal slur of me then I shall retire to my trailer and put on my tinfoil hat!
or maybe I should just go baaa baa Hahahaha
Chris.
|
|
|
Tiger Super Six
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 02:12 PM | |
|
If my kid getting security searched at an airport is the worst they have to face in this world then I'll take it. Complete cr*p arguement. I
don't think all security guards are kiddy fiddlers as you're trying to imply.
If you really believe that ALL security staff are turned on by touching up a woman, man or child I think you need to look at your stats again. Besides
I am pretty confident to say that most people you would have to check as a security guard would be munters that you would rather not touch.
Get a life and stay in the UK or use ferrys, trains etc if not.
Mark
Tiger Avon
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 02:31 PM | |
|
Where's the 'face-palm' smiley when you need one!?
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 03:30 PM | |
|
I cant see the issue of the scanners to be honest... The images are blurry at best, you can not really identify facial features... fine, a few guards
may get off on seeing these photos as part of their job, but no more than any other job...
So how do you cope when you go to a swimming pool, or the beach? Are all lifeguards only in the job to catch a glimpse of your child/wife in their
bathing costume!? Of course not - and it is a unfair to assume they are!
I can not beleive that you can jump to the conclusion that basically says all airport secrity guards are kiddy fiddling voyeurs, who get their rocks
off by staring at blurry very odd images, or by patting down every man woman and child that comes through the airport... Get a grip man!
If this is genuinely your attitude, it is no surprise to me that you are concerned, as you must be the most paranoid person, who is convinced that
everyone around them is up to no good... what a sad reflection on the society you think we live in!
|
|
|
Rod Ends
|
 posted on 17/11/10 at 04:38 PM | |
|
If you want proper airport security without hassle go to the experts:
The Israelis
|
|
|
swanny
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 04:57 PM | |
|
so what do you think the point of this all is? is there some overarching conspiracy theory? what is it trying to achieve.
it may well be that security measures at airports go over and above what is necessary, but many would agree that such a process is reassuring. As
passengers or customers we feel that lots of work is going on to protect us. and this is important.
i think the conspiracy argument to all this misses that most peoples fundamental drivers are selfish, so for an airport or an airline they know that
they need to spend £x in order for us to feel safe enough to continue to fly. which is how they survive.
heres an idea. you open up a low-cost & low security airline. market it to the general public on the basis of 'look chances are no one will
blow our planes up and we'll all get to preserve our freedom man' people may enjoy getting through the airport faster but i guarantee you
wont be inundated with bookings. again peoples fundamental drivers are selfish and will want to look after number one. the only people booking your
flights will be the tin foil hat wearers and those with post apocalypse survival cabins in the woods, who prize freedom over everything else. also
people will figure that if anyone is going to blow up a plane, it will be one of yours. so would you rather your children be blown up to preserve some
flawed concept of freedom or would you rather make a sacrifice to keep them as safe as you psosibly could.
freedom is one thing. and illusion.
we all have constraints placed upon us, we are partial and favour the safety of our nearest and dearest above all others. i wouldnt knowingly endanger
the life of my children to some rather airy goal of freedom that i probably cant even understand terribly well.
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 17/11/10 at 05:28 PM | |
|
Mmmm mixed feelings on this one, I'd like to think all this added to my safety on board an aircraft, but, why are people allowed to, or need to
take so much hand luggage on board, Mrs. and Me take passports and tickets, and her handbag big enough for a manicure set pack of fags and a purse!
Yes just 4 weeks ago she got on the plane at Manchester with a nailfile, scissors, nail clippers etc. in that set! completely by accident as we were
late due to traffic, so what can people get away with in rucksacks etc, obviously families with toddlers and babies need more.
My real fear is that security is now regarded as a process, which is gradually being automated, and unless something bleeps, flashes red, makes a
wailling noise no one is alerted, our hand luggage goes through scanners, but unless someone is scrutinising the screen anything can get through.
These security guards should be well trained to spot potential threats and act on them, and not fear cries of discrimination, greeting people and
assessing the response, watching body language are all skills they should have, but, instead everyone is subject to scanning, and then a random victim
singled out for a grope - sorry search, by some poorly trained uniformed individual earning not much above the minimum wage, which is another
indicator of how seriously security is taken!!
|
|
|
