Most of us recognize we're more likely to get hit by lightning while winning the lottery than be saved by one of these machines, and as such oppose their use.
And actually my point was not that these invasions should happen to a lot of people, but that they are fine as long as the collected information are immediately disposed and have no consequence in the future.
Do you actually know how many attacks these machines will prevent? You don't seem to have any facts to back up your statements.
In addition to this, the fact that people know that these machines are in place will prevent some future attempts.
Consider firstly the number of attacks caught per year. The number of flights per year. And the number of uncaught attacks per year.
I guess in the last year they might have caught one attack (the Xmas day one). In which case think the statement you are replying to is a fair one.
My issue isn't with the low percentage of attacks. It's the consequence of an attack, which is that innocent people die. Not to mention the fact that there might be less attacks because we are so protected.
> It's the consequence of an attack, which is that innocent people die.
But, they dont. Not all that often anyway. More innocent people die due to careless drivers; why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)
> Not to mention the fact that there might be less attacks because we are so protected
There are, generally, no attacks anyway.
As always in these discussions I recommend reading "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear" which addresses this much better than I can. :)
You can't force every driver to be more careful. I think the only way to fix these types of things would be to have really harsh jail sentences, so people think very carefully before they act. But, I would not want to live in a society like this.
"why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)"
If we can prevent innocent people from dying, why not have extra security in place? For the average person, it's just a minor inconvenience.
Airport security is much easier to maintain because it is more of a controlled environment.
"But, they dont. Not all that often anyway. More innocent people die due to careless drivers; why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)"
Like I said, if we don't concentrate on these things, we may have even more attacks because criminals/terrorists will know that they can get through security fairly easily. Many plots most likely never happen because of the difficulty of trying to get through security checkpoints.
"There are, generally, no attacks anyway."
Because we have tough security policies in place. Before 9/11, US airport security was lacking and terrorists were able to take advantage of it.
Plus using your logic you will not mind your daughter strip in a room full of random guys, hoping that will be the first and last encounter.
Meh, adult daughters can decide on their own anyway up to what levels they are willing to make themselves seen.
It's hard being a specialist but almost anyone can apply for security.
Well in my case if I had to I'd ask for female security officer (or gynecologist for that matter).
Or do children get to bypass the scanner, giving the terrorists useful mules for carrying forbidden objects onto the plane?
Doctors don't take photos (or other media) of naked children, so there is no pornography involved. Obviously if they do take photos, there is a crime. Likewise if they touch a child inappropriately, there is a (different) crime.
In the case of the body scanners, images are taken, thus it is pornography, and a crime.
And of course, MDs are actually screened and have thorough background checks where-as there have been multiple instances [2] of TSA employees not being thoroughly screened.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography
2. http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/02/05/tsa-...
"In the case of the body scanners, images are taken, thus it is pornography, and a crime."
Please read the whole sentence before saying it is a crime, unless you are implying all TSA employees enjoy sexual excitement while watching their screens.
Why don't you try putting an ad in your local paper for random children to pose nude for you, just make sure to keep all the photos on your hard drive for editing purposes.
No it doesn't. Taking pictures with the potential for sexual excitement and taking pictures for the purposes of sexual excitement are two completely different things.
However, may I remind you that my original point (although maybe bad formulated) was that these pictures were fine as long as they were, of course, immediately disposed. Stealing this pictures for one's personal interest is of course a crime, but you cannot assume everyone will do so.
Nope, its an important factor sure. But not the only factor - or even the most important.
Why don't you try putting an ad in your local paper for random children to pose nude for you
Maybe it wouldn't work in that way exactly; but you can take pictures of children if they have serious artistic value (I cant remember the exact wording).
I wouldn't advise trying it though.
CP laws are, as with all computer crime, all about intent :)
Seems like it should be a pretty good job to have if one were into that kind of thing- tons of access, not much oversight, and legal to boot!
EDIT: I then went on a Google hunt and found an article from Wired [1] in 2002 that says 'U.S. law defines kiddie porn as depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as intercourse and masturbation, or that show "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area."'
By that definition however none of these cell-phone cases would be considered child porn, so apparently the US gov't has changed their stance on the issue in the past 8 years.
No.
(I did answer this question a couple of times before :))
By passing through a scanner, what will be revealed about a person that is truly of any consequence? They have a 'small' penis? They are fat? They have various health problems? Deformities? So basically, the technician may, at worst, have knowledge about a person that is certainly already known by other people. Do you think the technician is going to write this stuff down and blackmail people? I just don't understand what the assumed horrible consequence is.
Also, you seem to be reducing humans to soulless machines. By your logic it should be possible to swear at any person i encounter on the street. After all, it's just a bunch of sounds.