31–40 of 91 posts
Rights, like a muscle, must be exercised. However, I feel entering a country which I'm not a citizen of (like the US), is a privilege, not a right. Thus, they can ask anything of me they want..and I can chose not to enter the country.
Body scanners aren't just used at entry to the US, they're used to get on domestic flights also.
Almost no politician would ever vote for removing this awful "security" measure. They would risk being blamed when another incompetent terrorist mastermind passes security and hopefully gets stopped by, now much more vigilant passengers. Going to the courts seems like a good way around that - sue the TSA. If someone with experience on these types of issues could comment I would be very interested to learn if this has…
Make a list of congressmen and senators that require you to let nude photos of your children to be taken by government employees. It's all about how you frame the argument
Also it sets up what could be spun as a bargaining chip. Exempt the kids and they can scan the adults.
From my experience full body scanners are much faster and more convenient compared to traditional system when you take off your shoes and go through metal detector. If you are unlucky an airport worker additionally scans you with a hand metal scanner. With full body scanner you just enter the cabin and voila! The scan takes 3 seconds.
It's not even the nudity that bothers me, personally. It's the radiation. I didn't sign up for unshielded exposure to dangerous levels of radiation when I bought my airplane ticket. Ultimately, I think a public health angle would have been a far more effective tact to take in the lawsuit or in the arguments against these scanners. It's the trump card. Privacy always loses an argument to fear and "security" in our pos…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make a list of congressmen and senators that require you to let nude photos of your children to be taken by government employees. It's all about how you frame the argument
That's good for the thin end of the wedge, but it might suggest that if the children are exempted from this nonsense, then the problem is solved. Also it sets up what could be spun as a bargaining chip. Exempt the kids and they can scan the adults.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even the nudity that bothers me, personally. It's the radiation. I didn't sign up for unshielded exposure to dangerous levels of radiation when I bought my airplane ticket. Ultimately, I think a public health angle would have been a far more effective tact to take in the lawsuit or in the arguments against these scanners. It's the trump card. Privacy always loses an argument to fear and "security" in our pos…
Why do you think the amount of radiation is dangerous?
There are over 800 million airline passengers in the US each year. If this radiation causes cancers in 1 in a million thats 800 people/year.
From my experience full body scanners are much faster and more convenient compared to traditional system when you take off your shoes and go through metal detector. If you are unlucky an airport worker additionally scans you with a hand metal scanner. With full body scanner you just enter the cabin and voila! The scan takes 3 seconds.
It's not even the nudity that bothers me, personally. It's the radiation. I didn't sign up for unshielded exposure to dangerous levels of radiation when I bought my airplane ticket. Ultimately, I think a public health angle would have been a far more effective tact to take in the lawsuit or in the arguments against these scanners. It's the trump card. Privacy always loses an argument to fear and "security" in our pos…
The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.05 μSv (or 0.005 mrems) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.09 μSv (0.009 mrems). At the high altitudes typical of commercial flights, naturally occurring cosmic radiation is considerably higher than at ground level. The radiation dose for a six hour flight is 20 μSv (2 mrems) - 200 to 400 times larger than a backscatter scan. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure".
The radiation exposure with Backscatter X-Ray's is really a non-issue.
IMO its much more damning to bring on the "think of the children"/"The Chinese government can hack your wife's nude pics" angle to convince the public against these machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even the nudity that bothers me, personally. It's the radiation. I didn't sign up for unshielded exposure to dangerous levels of radiation when I bought my airplane ticket. Ultimately, I think a public health angle would have been a far more effective tact to take in the lawsuit or in the arguments against these scanners. It's the trump card. Privacy always loses an argument to fear and "security" in our pos…
Why do you think the amount of radiation is dangerous?