Disclaimer: this post is going to include some rather rude concepts. I am not trying to shock and offend, I am trying to be clear and specific.
I went with the Planet X option because I felt that the premise was faulty.
I realize the poll choices are explicit, and perhaps it appears as though I am trying to bias the results. I
am being explicit, not for the sake of shock value, but because I don't think most people realize what the TSA is actually doing.
There really isn't much of a photo detail visible in the scans. They should, of course, not be recorded unless something suspicious is detected.
Don't get caught-up on the technology; I'm more concerned with the premise behind this technology. Assuming we, as a society, accept the premise of the "nude scanner", I fully expect the technology will continue to improve until we reach the point of crystal-clear, Hi-Def clarity.
Let me offer an analogy: until rather recently, video game graphics were nearly indistinguishable, and yet, millions of Americans protested the sex and violence they contained, long before the technology emerged to a point where it could generate horror, sex and violence at a nearly photo-realistic level. If you aren't a fan of video games, consider instead CGI film technology circa 1994 versus that available today.
Any argument based on "the graphics aren't explicit enough anyway" is temporary, at best.
Furthermore, having worked in a corporate IT environment for several years, let me clearly state that privacy does not exist when it comes to large-scale IT projects. On slow days, we used to read the boss's emails just for the sake of entertainment (he was always using company email to send...private...items to various secretaries). Illegal? Maybe. Unethical? Probably. Unusual? Hardly. Ethics and law aside, I could show you a nude photograph of this man if so inclined, and I have no doubt that he is completely unaware of this privacy breach. I realize the average TSA agent isn't exactly James Bond, but how much skill does it require to snap a quick shot of something with a cell phone camera?
Not frisking children could lead to children being used by terrorists looking for loopholes in our system, no?
Absolutely. Let's consider- if I wanted to cause violence to a flight, and I was aware a child would not be scanned, planting my materials on a child is a no-brainer. I fully expect the enemy would do exactly this.
And I just realized I made an error in my OP, and linked to the same Wired article twice. I meant to include this article also:
For the First Time, the TSA Meets Resistance
Forgive the crude nature of the article, but the point made is valid and relevant to your above point:
"What am I not going to like?" I [author] asked.
"We have to search up your thighs and between your legs until we meet resistance," [the TSA agent] explained.
"Resistance?" I asked.
"Your testicles," he explained.
[...]
I pointed out to the security officer that 50 percent of the American population has no [testicles] (90 percent in Washington, D.C., where I live), so what is going to happen when the pat-down officer meets no resistance in the crotchal area of women? "If there's no resistance, then there's nothing there."
"But what about people who hide weapons in their cavities? I asked. I actually said "vagina" again, just to see him blush. "We're just not going there," he reiterated.
You rightfully argue that if we don't search children, the enemy will likely attempt to use this oversight to their nefarious advantage.
But isn't this also true of body cavities? People have been smuggling drugs through our airports for the last 40 years, if not longer. And my understanding is, the majority of these smugglers use their...cavities...in order to hide the smuggled materials.
If I can hide cocaine where the sun don't shine, can't a terrorist do the same with some explosive materials? Or perhaps anthrax? I can think of all sorts of terrible scenarios.
So back to your point- I suppose by your logic the current frisking should be replaced by a full cavity search. If we fail to do a full cavity search, or we refuse to subject children to these same security practices, the enemy
will likely attempt to exploit this oversight sooner or later.
I agree with your premise entirely, I just error on the side of liberty. Furthermore, I could name another 20 horrible things I might do at an airport, several of which I have not seen reported or discussed openly yet. I have a real knack for thinking of terrible things, and by the time you have guarded the American people against every paranoid delusion in my head, I have no doubt it would take the average passenger about 12 hours to pass a security check.
To leave a single known vulnerability unprotected is to undermine your own "anything for security" argument. Either we take every "what-if" seriously, or we accept that we can never defend against 100% of potential and hypothetical attacks, and so we must find a sane balance of comfort and safety instead.
Anyone have any freaking evidence that scanning/frisking children will do anything to increase security on the planes??
I'll do you one better- does anyone have any freaking evidence that the TSA have ever directly prevented a single violent crime?
Has the TSA ever saved the day?
Skeptics- do what you do best, and go lay down some straight dope.
If the TSA is keeping us safe from terrorists, surely someone can name a few names, and give some specific examples. I'm not interested in the "terrorist are afraid to try" argument, because that could never be proven either way. The burden of proof is simple- all I'm asking for is a single case, and then I'll stop my TSA bashing and admit loudly that I am wrong, and that the TSA is in fact doing something to keep us safe.
