Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
#2I think this reflects the number of a)Those who haven't traveled recently and b)Those who haven't traveled in the last few months...
Ideally the poll would ask if those answering have ever been scanned; then at least show me the segmented results.
Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
#3I think this reflects the number of a)Those who haven't traveled recently and b)Those who haven't traveled in the last few months... Ideally the poll would ask if those answering have ever been scanned; then at least show me the segmented results.
Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.
Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
#4I think this reflects the number of a)Those who haven't traveled recently and b)Those who haven't traveled in the last few months... Ideally the poll would ask if those answering have ever been scanned; then at least show me the segmented results.
Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.
Please learn how to rationally evaluate risks before voting.
Edit: This was an immature personal attack, and I apologize. It really shouldn't be voted up; others have made the same point in a more constructive manner.
Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
#5I think this reflects the number of a)Those who haven't traveled recently and b)Those who haven't traveled in the last few months... Ideally the poll would ask if those answering have ever been scanned; then at least show me the segmented results.
Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.
I would like to know where you draw the safety vs. personal freedom line. How far is too far? For me we crossed the line a long time ago. It would be nice to hear a different perspective. As it stands now, a 13 year old boy or girl will be groped during an enhanced pat down.
As I see it, 9/11 can't happen again. That is, an airplane will never again be hijacked and used as a missile. It's possible for someone to blow up a plane but not to turn it into a missile.
There are lots of places where a terrorist can kill 200+ people that don't have any security at all. Given this, I don't understand why having the level of security in our airports is justified. We've made it so that airports are a much harder target than a sporting event. Thus, airports are much safer from a terrorism point of view. Enhancements to security are not needed and a waste of time.
I genuinely would like to know why my reasoning is wrong in your opinion and where you draw the line.
Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
#6I think this reflects the number of a)Those who haven't traveled recently and b)Those who haven't traveled in the last few months... Ideally the poll would ask if those answering have ever been scanned; then at least show me the segmented results.
Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.
@orangecat: If you are suggesting I'm talking a health risk, fair enough. If you are suggesting the added security from the scanners is minimal, also fair enough. If you are trolling, you know what you can do.
Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.
@orangecat: If you are suggesting I'm talking a health risk, fair enough. If you are suggesting the added security from the scanners is minimal, also fair enough. If you are trolling, you know what you can do.
I'm suggesting that the risk of terrorists blowing up your flight using a method that backscatter machines would prevent, but that previous procedures would not prevent, is indistinguishable from zero. You're trading your civil liberties in exchange for nothing. And that would be fine, except you're also trading my civil liberties in the process.
Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
#8I don't believe this poll for a second. Liars!
Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure you are correct - I'm in the 2/3. I have been scanned several times and I'm fine with it. For me: safety > personal privacy.
I would like to know where you draw the safety vs. personal freedom line. How far is too far? For me we crossed the line a long time ago. It would be nice to hear a different perspective. As it stands now, a 13 year old boy or girl will be groped during an enhanced pat down. As I see it, 9/11 can't happen again. That is, an airplane will never again be hijacked and used as a missile. It's possible for someone to blow…
Actually, I think your reasoning is well "reasonable". :)
I also agree with you that the hijack/missile scenario seems unlikely at this point (existing safety precautions seem appropriate).
I remain surprised (but happy) that terrorists have not gone after softer targets (malls, etc). For some reason, they remain very focused on airplanes (maybe the shock and awe effect). As a result, taking steps to make air travel as safe as possible seems reasonable.
Now - how we do that is an open question. We have already had an underwear bombing attempt. How do we prevent this from being attempted again? The only solution I have seen is the current scanners and sadly the "pat down". If there is a better one, lets deploy it. If not, then it seems the argument is personal privacy > the lives of the unfortunate passengers aboard the plane that explodes when the terrorists are successful. No?
If the underwear bomber had been successful, would you have a different view?
Re: Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
@orangecat: If you are suggesting I'm talking a health risk, fair enough. If you are suggesting the added security from the scanners is minimal, also fair enough. If you are trolling, you know what you can do.
I'm suggesting that the risk of terrorists blowing up your flight using a method that backscatter machines would prevent, but that previous procedures would not prevent, is indistinguishable from zero. You're trading your civil liberties in exchange for nothing. And that would be fine, except you're also trading my civil liberties in the process.
I am well aware the scanners are flawed. However, I have not seen a study that shows the added benefit is "indistinguishable from zero." Please provide links, I may agree with you.