How long a media campaign will it take for everyone to be IN LOVE with full body scammers .... er ..

[Stinky The Clown]

..... scanners?

"Tell Dickie to smile"

[berni_mccoy]

1. Sadly, I've already heard the media (non-Faux) say "Americans need to get comfortable with nude

scans or accept that there will be more underwear bombers".

Seriously, heard that from a reporter on Morning Meeting this morning.

And too many people I know say "If you don't want to be searched, don't go on an airplane".

I think they are already "in love" with the technology.

[niyad]

2. agree with previous poster. it has already happened. I am reminded of a line, "it is difficult to

free fools from the chains they revere" (believe it was voltaire)

sadly, this has been going on for a very long time.

[lunatica]

3. Do they 'coincidentally' just happen to have the scanners in place already?

Was the Panty Dud just the excuse They needed?

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Yes

They're already there and were in danger of mothballing.

Scrotum Bomber.

Voila!

Peeping Tom Machines for Electronic Crotch Sniffing.

[MindPilot]

4. What little sense of modesty I had, I lost in the military.

So frankly I don't care. I just hope that I have the chance to chub-up a little before entering the scanner.

But yes, Americans will accept it rather easily. Just like they have been convinced that sobriety checkpoints are a viable solution to drunk driving, they would just as easily support house-to-house searches for child porn.

Our nation is full of authoritarians who follow the dual mantras of "if it saves/prevents just one______it was worth it" and the always-popular-with-the-police-state crowd "if you have nothing to hide..."

[sui generis]

5. Does anyone remember when MADD proposed that

we put breathalyzers on EVERY vehicle in the U.S., and that we retrofit older vehicles?

I wonder who would have benefited from THAT bunghole free-for-all. You know, if we're going to scan everybody and pick through every piece of luggage and double check every taint, it had damn well better make us get through security FASTER, and more securely, because if it doesn't then the extra five or ten or twenty bucks per trip segment we're going to end up paying is just another bailout of yet another industry.

As a former exotic male dancer myself, I could care less who sees my gorgeous hoo haw and buttawcks. Pity the poor TSA personnel who will be forced to see some ungawdly fugly though, argh me eyes are bleeding just thinking about it.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. A blowpipe in every car that disables the engine would actually save many lives

No, I am absotively, posilutely NOT in favor of it. But it actually makes more sense than these peep show machines and the wankers who operate them.

[sui generis]

16. it would also make the blow pipe manufacturer fabulously rich.

I'm with you though, the people whose job it is to think of this shit BEFORE the crazies blow their dicks off their taint are the ones who need to be on trial here.

Security, my microwaved ass.

Our current batch of TSA people sound EXACTLY like the Bush administration: "We had NO idea we should have taken the threat seriously, because they didn't tell us this dude was wearing a taint-bomb and what flight he was going to be on and how he intended to detonate it, and what seat he was going to be in." Dear TSA: That's YOUR job.

And the former administration had no idea Bin Laden might fly an airplane into a skyscraper, other than that pesky memo of the same title.

Maybe if we just got some competent accountable people in place in the NTA and TSA, things might ACTUALLY be safer for commercial travel.

[MindPilot]

14. All of these save-us-from-ourselves technologies benefit from fear.

Fear of red-light-runners, fear of drunk drivers, fear of child abductors, all legitimate things to be wary of, but by wildly exaggerating those fears the "security" industry profits. Scanners, cameras, monitors, detectors all kinds of expensive stuff that's needed to "keep us safe".

[MiniMe]

17. This post is worthless without pictures

"As a former exotic male dancer myself, I could care less who sees my gorgeous hoo haw and buttawcks"

:hide:

[sui generis]

18. Oh there are pictures . . .

:P

you know how the interwebs are - although my stage name then and my current incarnation now are not cross-reference-able.

You never know when I might go insane and run for office, and need free media.

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. I'm thinking of taking some Viagra before one of these scans

Just for fun.

[MindPilot]

10. They will probably put that in the same category as "bomb" jokes

No doubt excessive turgidity will flag you for a more thorough inspection.

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. I hope I get to choose the groper

If not, it will still be exciting.

[malaise]

9. They'll fail if they use Chertoff

Looks like he was scanned for the scam a few times too often. :evilgrin:

[AzDar]

11. Unfortunately, these pervy-scanners can't detect Tampon-Bombs, or Rectal-BoomBooms, so

I predict that these will be the next weapons of choice. Also, checking every piece of luggage/cargo in the belly of the plane would be the more obvious remedy, but, hey, you go to the War On Terror(-ized passengers)with the security force that you have, not one that actually WORKS, right?

[Deep13]

12. WTF are they? Xrays?

I'm not getting any non medical Xrays! Flying is not worth brain cancer.

[suffragette]

13. The media campaign is in full tilt, isn't it

There are few dissenting pieces out there.

Here's one, but even it has issues. It actually explores how the full body scanners aren't as infallible as they're being depicted elsewhere, but casts the (false) argument that the choice is about using these or about using profiling instead of placing the emphasis on proper intelligence (gathering and acting on it) and having a well-trained, well-compensated and professional TSA agency:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html


Are planned airport scanners just a scam?
New technology that Gordon Brown relies on for his response to the Christmas Day bomb attack has been tested – and found wanting

By Jane Merrick
The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.

The claim severely undermines Gordon Brown's focus on hi-tech scanners for airline passengers as part of his review into airport security after the attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.

The Independent on Sunday has also heard authoritative claims that officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation.

~snip~
Last week the US Transportation Security Administration ordered $165m-worth of scanners, using both millimetre and X-ray technology, from L-3 Communications.

Qinetiq had developed a similar millimetre-wave body scanner, but is now developing a sophisticated "stand-off" scanner which does not pose any privacy issues as it does not show a body image. Materials hidden on a body reflect back signals, showing up as a red alert on screen. Kevin Murphy, product manager for physical security at Qinetiq, admitted this SPO system would also not have picked up the Christmas Day bomb, but insisted that it could be used as part of a "layered approach" to security in mass transportation, which would also include monitoring people's behaviour.


More AST (Airport Security Theater) and some huge profits for some people are being implemented, but not much being talked about in terms of correcting the deeper security intelligence issues that should be the main focus after this incident.