Re: airport see thru scannersOct 31st, 2009
Anyone that does not like it has the option of not flying.
It is not a matter of time. Mainly because in this case the X ray is not compulsory, an alternative is offered (old fashioned search). That is why I donít think the question of Charter challenge, exemptions etc. does not arise.
I don't see the problem. My safety on a plane is far more important than some terrorists right to pack explosives on a plane. Remember the guy with the explosive shoes?
Anyone that does not like it has the option of not flying.
That's funny, coming from you.
I didn't think that watching the Olympics was compulsory (an alternative is to stay home and watch TV), but apparently that requires special accomodations for religions so they can carry weapons. Why is air travel different?
Which side of your mouth are you speaking from this time, the right or the left?
It is good to see a kindred soul, taxslave. After they caught the shoe bomber (Richard Reid), they started the requirement that you must remove your shoes at the security checkout.
After they caught the terrorists in Britain who were trying to smuggle liquid explosives on to airplanes, they prohibited people from carrying liquids onto the planes. I remember I was in Buxton when that happened (in 2006, I think it was). When that happened there was a big confusion, for a day it was doubtful I if will be able to fly back to Canada.
So as there are more terrorist acts, there are more security measures; we give up a little bit of our rights. It is a necessary sacrifice to make sure that air travel remains safe.
And I suspect most people wonít have a problem with the new security measures. It is fast (you are done in a few seconds) and convenient (you donít ah veto take off anything). There may be a few who will object (and go through the old security measures), but I expect most will take to it.
It is simple, TenPenny. For Olympics they had a blanket rule that no weapons were allowed. Then the question naturally arose, what do they do about the kirpan, which is a religious icon and is mandated for Sikhs to wear it at all times?
But here they donít have a blanket rule; they are not saying that everybody must undergo this inspection. If they did, then the comparison with the kirpan case would be appropriate. But since they are not forcing anybody to undergo the inspection, I donít think the kirpan case is appropriate here. Anybody who objects to it can still travel the old fashioned way.
Sorry accepted. I might have been a bit thin skinned there, I am actually very shy about showing my body - well, to strangers at least...so I would be terribly uncomfortable in one of those scanners. But like Ron said, I don't think I'd let it stop me from going on a vacation... maybe I'd just have to down a couple or 7 rum n'cokes before I went through security. By then I might render the damn thing unnecessary!
Seriously though I don't know what the solution is. Seems like people are getting more and more whacky in how far they'll take things, forcing us to find equally whacky solutions. I'm sure I sound like my grandparents now, but sometimes I do wonder what the hell is this world coming to.
There are some people who seem to view any encroachment on our rights as acceptable, as long as they're little nibbles. And, of course, as long as we let certain groups have an exemption on religious grounds. But for the majority to give up freedom is perfectly acceptable.
Me, I'm tired of it. And some of those religious groups who get a pass due to their rights, are the very groups behind some of Canada's worst aviation terrorism.
I don't jest, I know too many retired British cops who have moved here who can attest to this because they were part of the system. I don't know who the "they" are you refer to, if it is the UK, well, they have surveillance everywhere. As one fellow said to me, "you, on average, cannot go 400 metres anywhere in the UK without being photographed".Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
Terrorism is a handy excuse to suspend or eliminate freedoms. Sure surveillance may deter some random crime but doesn't stop terrorism, it only provides evidence in the aftermath, the victims are just as dead. Not only that but he British rendered its populace defenseless, they also outlaw self defense, even in your own home.
As for security, it was the States' lax security measures that allowed 9-11 to happen, and trust me, they were lax and targetted the wrong people. The same is still happening, here and abroad. Extraordinary security measures are merely window dressing and optics. A false sense of security is a dangerous thing, and that security becomes out last line of defense. At least now, in the US and Israel anyway, the last line of defense is armed pilots.
We have no such right. Believing so is dangerous because the state will put our safety in the hands of the state by eliminating out freedoms in the name of safety, safety they know is impossible to provide.
Except the ones who do it for a living, anyway, the likelyhood of Richard Reid, or anyone else getting caught simply by the random use of this scanner is pretty remote. Terrorists are one step ahead of technology and this is just another peice that will be circumvented. Good old fashioned intel, observation, and reporting are still needed. As I said, all this security hocus pocus is window dressing and optics because it targets the wrong people.
Actually no. Terrorists are continually inventing methods. The rest of us develop technology to adapt to what the terrorists do and then the terrrorists figure out ways around it or move on to different methods.
That is the main reason why I said they have won. We can only react unless we do the same as they do ... enact terror on their loved ones, like Bush did in his imcompetent manner.
Terrorists, in this case at least, are like ants looking for an entry point or vulnerability. My statement that they are one step ahead could also be taken as we are one step behind. When the idea that terrorists could hijack aircraft and use them as missiles was first suggested it was met with guffaws and harrumphs. The idea was so low tech it was laughable. Myself and many others were laughed out of boardrooms for pointing out many shortcomings of security. Hell, these guys didn't need to smuggle box cutters in because you could buy knives in the gift shops at US airports, all of which were inside the security checkpoints. But a 9-11 attack, along with the attempted manufacture of explosives on board are pretty much one trick ponies. While I suspect there'll still some attempted, and possibly successful security breaches, I'm prepared to bet the next major threat will come from the outside, one that will be much harder to defend against, especially when we're looking the wrong way. I just hope I'm wrong this time.
BTW, the purpose of terrorism is to make the populace fearful of normal everyday activities, if we are fearful then yes, they have won.
The point remains that terrorist use what is best known "allowed items" to pass onto aircrafts.
If kirpans are allowed onto certain aircrafts you can bet I will not fly that airline.
But this is beyond security measure as the scanners are used to look for objects that are then patted down anyway ??
There is no security that will be 100% fool proof because it is administered by people that can be bought. That is a reality of our world.
Again the terrorist have won..