If it gets me where I’m going, bring on the X-ray scanner

iansand says:

06:16am | 12/01/10

I agree.  I don’t care who sees me naked as long as they don’t laugh.  You can be absolutely certain that the poor security people who have to look at hundreds of these scans every shift will become so blasé that the images will cease having any connection to real bodies.

@BlokesLib says:

06:43am | 12/01/10

I couldn’t agree more. At the end of the day it’s all about our safety. A small price to pay for my safety and that of my family.

Dave Sag says:

06:45am | 12/01/10

They trialled these machines in Heathrow and would pick people out of the line at random to test them.  My wife discovered that if you get picked you get taken up to the front where you can then refuse the test on the grounds that you don’t like exposing yourself to too many x-rays (fair enough) and they then say “oh ok luv” and waltz you through the front of the queue at the regular security screening.  She did this a few times and always beat the queue that way.

They had taken the machines away last time I went to the UK, apparently they were too slow, and not really much good at finding concealed weapons anyway.

The other odd thing about Heathrow is they’d make you take off belt and shoes but let you leave your laptop in its bag.  Go figure.

Grumpy Middle Aged Man says:

07:14am | 12/01/10

Sure none of us want the security guard at the airport pointing and sniggering from behind their bullet proof glass but I’m pretty sure that none of us want airliners full of our family and friends falling from the skies either.  Imagine for a minute if you can the problems that would happen in Australia [a very racist country if you believe the Indians] if a Muslim extremist was to hijack a Qantas 747 and park it in Parliament House?  There’d be an outcry, Aussies would rally behind their fellow mates and, no they wouldn’t!  They wouldn’t do anything!  The old days of the digger mentality are over, within days of hundreds of innocents being murdered in Bali Aussies were jetting off there for a cheap holiday, it didn’t matter that we didn’t know who’d done it, Aussies are sure that everyone loves them and therefore they refuse to get drawn into racist arguments just in case a person from overseas is injured and we get branded as being racist!
We’ve become politically correct to the extreme, the fighting Aussie spirit that made this country great has withered and died.  As for the scanners, well if the Americans want them they’ll get them, and you know I think that if the Kiwis demanded it we’d do the same for them too!

acker says:

07:38am | 12/01/10

Nurses and Doctors often see it all…so what if a security clerk behind a scanner does

Just get on with it please….fly nude if need be..it’s better than a bomb on board

Steve Smith says:

07:45am | 12/01/10

So because there is porn on the Internet.. the argument is that it is okay if your x-ray scan is leaked on the Internet? Does that argument really work for someone who is not a porn star?

If we discuss security measures so constantly, we might be making the dumb majority feel safer, but aren’t we helping terrorists work their way around the situation?

Carl Palmer says:

07:51am | 12/01/10

If the scanners do what they are suppose to do then I don’t have a problem at all. There are too many loonies (can’t call them anything else for fear of been branded a racist) that fly and are prepared to slaughter people for their “beliefs”.

My only concern, which applies to the current screening process, is consistency. I have flown between states and wear or carry the same shoes, belt etc. I go thru Sydney ok but get pulled up in Brissie. I remove my shoes and pass thru with no problems.  Frustrated, I asked the operator why and he said that it was probably due to how the machines were calibrated. If we can’t achieve uniformity in Australian what will happen internationally???

DG says:

07:58am | 12/01/10

Personally I feel sorry for the sucker sitting behind the screen that has to look at me through a blue glow - It’d be something like Violet Beauregarde (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) after eating the chewing gum - and I’m sure that I wouldn’t be the worst that they’d see on any given day.

I suspect that the public outcry is misguided at best. On what basis do we assume that we have a right to travel on a plane? Does it come as a surprise to any one that they will have to go through the most ‘up to date’ security procedures available and there is a prospect of someone waiting at the other end with a blue latex glove? (What is it with the blue?)

If I buy a ticket - scan away. If I don’t want to be scanned, I won’t buy a ticket. It’s a rather easy way to avoid being scanned if you are uncomfortable with the idea of an airline wanting to know exactly what you are taking onto their plane.

Seamus says:

08:08am | 12/01/10

Bring on the scanners - the sooner the better.

acker says:

08:11am | 12/01/10

@Steven Smith Minority supremo…have you ever entertained the unusual thought that the majority are more intelligent than you.

I only have your pretty lame pompous self inflating comment to go by in my evaluation of your nous

Louis McLennan says:

08:34am | 12/01/10

No scanners for me thanks. If everyone has to go through one of these things when they fly I hope whoever own the company that puts them in place is not protected from lawsuits. Because we all know that gamma rays(are they gamma? I’m only getting this from what I have read here) can just get through your cotton clothes and go no further. It would be silly to suggest that such scanners are going to stop a terrorist. If they can’t get you in the sky they’ll just get you on a bus. Full body scanners on the bus next? While I’ll accept the radiation is only so many times this much background radiation. You’re getting it in a short period of time and who knows what these continual scans will mean. I’m sure there is someone who knows and is yelling at the top of their lungs only to be silenced.

If someone want’s to lay out exactly what these actions mean for one when it comes to a dose of radiation and bodies way of recovery and times needed for such recoveries I’ll be able to make an informed answer. I’ll want Rudd’s family to go through it first.

Steve Smith says:

08:34am | 12/01/10

@acker: that thought has been entertained many times, it makes me feel safer.

acker says:

08:40am | 12/01/10

@Steve Smith ..I am prepared to trade off vanity for safety and I will feel safer if I know for sure that your not Foreign Minister Steve Smith…or any one near the decision making process on the uptake and use of scanners in Australian airports.

Carl Palmer says:

08:42am | 12/01/10

@Louis McLennan says:09:34am | 12/01/10
“I’ll want Rudd’s family to go through it first.” That wasn’t very nice - but I understand where you are coming from.

mikk says:

08:51am | 12/01/10

So do you state the same sentiments when it comes to your wife? or your kids? Plenty of celebrities may be worried.
Just because youre a fugly mofo who no one wants to perve on doesnt mean there are not people who would be at risk from these porn scanners.
What will they do when there are still terror attacks despite these machines? Strip searches? Camera up the bum? xrays?

BT says:

08:51am | 12/01/10

As a female, I’d rather the airline staff did not xray me and I don’t think it should be mandatory. Firstly I do not wish for my currently fertile reproductive organs to be passed through xray without a doctor present or have a guard tell me I am pregnant after he’s zapped a foetus I wasn’t aware I was carrying. Secondly, I don’t want anyone demanding I take out a tampon because it looks like a suspicious package. This is yet another way of the government tightening it’s grip and feeding the fear of the masses and people buying into it.

Angela says:

08:56am | 12/01/10

Me too bring it on, if it stops even one of these Jackals from blowing up a plane or hijacking it again then I am all for it.

Invasion of privacy my Foot, when every tom dick and harry goes online these days say to Facebook and spews our their private lives, look at twitter, what privacy do these people complain about when its themselves with their big mouths that have given it away.

Jamers Hunter says:

09:07am | 12/01/10

bring it on.
if people are so precious that the put puritanical predjudices above their saftey then they should stsy at home. besides they would probably be pain in the ass type so we would not want to have to spend a long haul trip beside them !!

Steve Smith says:

09:19am | 12/01/10

@acker: feel free to interchange the word vanity for the correct issue of privacy.. which I am so proud of you for freely giving up! You should be awarded .. Don’t be suprised if your nominated for Australian of the Year

As long as we aren’t dealing with real concerns.. like how much water someone takes on a plane, or why my shoes aren’t being x-rayed, we will all feel better when flying

NCG says:

09:34am | 12/01/10

Sure, beef up the main airport terminal security, however I think you are all missing a key downfall in this strategy; rural airports. Only recently I boarded a flight to Sydney, unbeknown to me, I had some rifle rounds in my carry on bag. Once in Sydney airport I caught my connecting flight to Brisbane, still no issues. It was only on the returning flight the next day, Brisbane to Sydney, that I was picked up. It took some serious explaining as to why I was in an airport with half a dozen 30 cal rounds in my bag, but fortunately the security guys saw to reason. In fact they were a little red faced when I explained the facts to them.

Simply put, if you want to down a domestic jet in this country, board a flight from a rural area first. Its scary how lapse the security is, yet we are to spend millions implementing these new scanners. Doesn’t make sense to me…..

no cancer for me thanks says:

09:53am | 12/01/10

“If it get’s me where i’m going?”
My goodness like sheeple to the slaughter
Why are all of you so willing to submit to draconian invasion of privacy and levels of ionic radiation that may give you CANCER?
No wonder governments can manipulate the public so easily ... just reading these comments tells me how unbelievably naive most Australians are.

Google xray causes cancer
There are studies EVERYWHERE that show this is dangerous and can lead to CANCER - is this what you are all lining up for?

“Airport body scanners not only show you naked, they also have the potential to wreck your DNA. The body scanners use terahertz waves to show your privates and terahertz waves rip apart DNA. “
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

There is NO safe dose level of this radiation. Read about the work of Dr Gofman, who was a leading U.S. expert on the biological effects of X-radiation. ” Even at lower doses, Dr. Gofman suggests, accumulation of ionizing medical radiation can trigger cancer five to 50 years later. “There is no safe dose,” he maintains. “Just one radioactive atom can produce permanent mutation in a cell’s genetic molecules, which is cancer.”

“A report in the British medical journal Lancet noted that after breast mammograms were introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma (12 percent of breast cancer) increased by 328 percent, of which 200 percent was due to the use of mammography itself. “

“Exposure to X-rays and gamma rays, even at low-dose levels, increases risk of cancer. That is the bottom line of a comprehensive five-year study by a National Research Council (NRC) committee. .. There appears to be no threshold below which exposure can be viewed as harmless”

WAKE UP PEOPLE

Sadhbh Warren says:

09:57am | 12/01/10

I’m heartened to see how many people will be joining me in flashing my bits at security. This way, if I end up on the net at least I will be in company.

@Louis - Gamma rays are the rays emitted by the monitor the xray is seen on, and there are devices that could re-generate the image seen later based on the gamma rays emitted. It was given as an example, by SMH, of how the images could be “hacked”.

With regards to the x-rays from the scanners, there are articles saying that we soak up more radiation in 5 minutes from the plane equipment than the scan itself - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397526-health-fear-over-new-airport-scanners.do - no actual numbers or studies cited though, so that’s up for grabs too.

@NCG I once accidently tried to get through Sydney domestic security with a child’s toy gun in my bag. Apparently, plastic shows up and looks just as bad as metal. Boy, was that fun - an Irish redhead running through security with a gun gets EVERYONE interested. The moral of the story? Always check every pocket in your bag no matter how much of a hurry you are in, especially if you are near kids.

acker says:

10:08am | 12/01/10

@ Rt Hon S.Smith MP OBE ...the only water I think anyone should take onboard an aircraft is in their bladder.

MartinG says:

10:14am | 12/01/10

This is a invasion of privacy. Subjecting everyday citizens (i.e. not criminals) to virtual strip-searches is inappropriate. Why should Australian travellers be put through this just because US intelligence agencies are incompetent? Remind me how many Australian planes were hijacked/bombed last year?

If you are worried about your security on a plane, you might want to contact the Australian Government over the recently relaxed laws about what you can take onboard.

David says:

10:34am | 12/01/10

I don’t want anybody seeing me naked at all, so using medical doctors, or porn stars to justify this is ridiculous. It is not puritanical or vain as other people ahve mentioned, but the fact that I don’t feel it is necessary to increase security at the expense of what only I should see. There may be a lot of insecure, or under-confident people who may not fly now, and that is unfair.

cats says:

10:37am | 12/01/10

As a young female, I am certain to be targeted with these scanners. And don’t give me crap about the security being more focussed on actual security - yeah right. That’s why they screwed up Allan Kessing’s life, because he exposed the fact that they don’t give a shit about actual security. Point is, I don’t trust airport security…

Carl Palmer says:

10:41am | 12/01/10

@ NCG says: - 10:34am | 12/01/10
On the other hand, the security people at some other rural airports do their jobs like Nazis and make you feel like a terrorist.

Out of curiosity when did this happen to you?? If it was recently, I’d be really concerned.

Psy Operative says:

10:46am | 12/01/10

Its just a scam to drum up business for the scanner manufactuers, fear will do that. Its more likely the guy with the exploding undies was an agent on a mission to frighten the public into allowing this for their own protection, my reason for stating this is the device is so simple, nothing should have gone wrong…it was never meant to go bang to begin with

NCG says:

10:58am | 12/01/10

Carl Palmer @ 1141: Was mid 2009 on a Rex flight. Rather not say the airport name as to get them into any trouble. But since my work takes me through rural airports around NSW, QLD and VIC, they are all pretty much the same as the local one here. Perhaps it’s the business suit that prevents rubber glove treatment as I can’t say I’ve struck any Nazi style security measures as yet.

Davy says:

11:00am | 12/01/10

I think the safety issue cannot be underplayed. Lets face it we all know we need full face helmets, fire retarding suits, full harness seat belts, crash pads in front of us. In fact why not go the whole hog, each of us should be placed in a coccoon whenever we fly. We should all be drugged so that no passenger can step out of line. Then we will be truly safe. Off course we should also introduce these measures in vehicles. In fact we will only be really safe if we all stay at home. Lets do that. woooo…I can breath easier now. All is right in the world.

By the way, according to new scientist, air transport is by far and away the safest way to get around and the study included walking and pushbikes.
Go figure.

not a terrorist says:

11:03am | 12/01/10

We are all terrorists now.

open your eyes says:

11:06am | 12/01/10

PROBLEM. REACTION. SOLUTION

Google it.

welcome to 1984 says:

11:16am | 12/01/10

So a further erosion of basic freedoms.Just like our ‘war on terror’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. This will do NOTHING to keep us safe(r). Forget the media sound bites about this issue Do some research into why these are being introduced and why you MUST boycott these scanners

Jamers Hunter says:

11:21am | 12/01/10

no cancer fo me thanks… wow man but you way outa date these things no use x rays so there !!

no cancer for me thanks says:

11:22am | 12/01/10

Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA
http://www.naturalnews.com/027913_full-body_scanners_DNA.html

Margaret Gray says:

11:33am | 12/01/10

“...Honestly, who wants to see my blurred blue bald bits when they could watch proper porn?...”

Rather, it’s the wistful collection of metallic ‘charms’ pierced into labia of varying proportions that I’m more concerned about.

There’s not enough eye-bleach in the whole world to cleanse that kind of visual trauma from an unsuspecting airport security employee.

Scaring the children and senior citizens whilst wearing a Wicked Weasel bikini at Tamarama is bad enough.

A line has to be drawn.

dancan says:

11:36am | 12/01/10

It’s not a matter of people wanting to see you naked or even caring about who you are.  They’ll do it because they can.  And once they’re posted on the internet there will be someone out there who will get off over it, and then there will be the people who will spend the countless hours reimaging the pictures to try and find out who it is for the simple reason of wanting to embarrass you.  If you don’t believe what I say as truth you haven’t surfed the internet for long enough

Personally I’d rather take the risk of being blown up than have another invasion to my privacy.  And I bet the metal detectors and everything will still be there even after these scanners are introduced

no cancer for me thanks says:

11:37am | 12/01/10

There are two types of scanners being introduced.
The millimeter-wave scanner and the ‘backscatter’ X-ray scanner.
Both emit ‘high-energy’ radiation and are dangerous.

Sam Chowder says:

11:43am | 12/01/10

With reference to the international “no pants ride” yesterday http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/slideshow?id=9515785  Airlines could opt to become “no pants and shirts” airlines in the interest of security, I for one would feel safer having made my own visual security check of my fellow passengers.

Trav says:

12:31pm | 12/01/10

All you people who say you don’t have a problem with it are fools. This is another way for the government to be even more intrusive under the guise of “security”.
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

welcome to 1984 says:

12:43pm | 12/01/10

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

—Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall

Carl Palmer says:

12:49pm | 12/01/10

@NCG says: - 11:58am | 12/01/10
My wife’s work takes her around country NSW and she was the one who told me that she was regularly given a hard time at the security desk. Maybe they are lenient with the blokes and tougher with females and yes like you I didn’t want to mention the airport for the same reason.

Anyway thanks for that.

red robin says:

12:52pm | 12/01/10

I think the best solution for safer air travel is for the airlines to hire anesthesiologists so we can be placed into a medically induced coma and loaded into crates for the journey.

We are being treated like dumb cattle after all.

James Mc says:

12:53pm | 12/01/10

Personally, I think you should have to fly nude. No shoe-bombs, undy bombs, concelled weapons. Could be a problem if the flighty spills coffee on you - but if its ok for Air NZ - it should be fine for all of us. Could make waiting in the queue a little more enjoyable too.

the computer says no says:

01:06pm | 12/01/10

How have we slid so quiescently into such an authoritarian political culture? Why is it that every government solution always seems to include elements which erode more of our ancient rights and personal freedoms, and increases government control over our lives?

Scanning breaches our fundamental rights to protect the privacy of our own bodies. It tramples over that very presumption of innocence, which is very essence of a free society. We cannot continue to live our lives in fear and insecurity. We must stop this incremental step by step erosion of our civil liberties and rights as humans beings.

What will we do when we have no personal freedoms left? Will we be happy that there is less chance of being blown up by terrorists or will we mourn the life we once knew?

dark side of the moon says:

01:19pm | 12/01/10

‘no cancer for me’  don’t be concerned. No need to worry about the radiation exposure, it only builds up over time slowly breaking down cells and further weakening your immune system. Your elderly immune suppressed Grandmother or pregnant wife shouldn’t worry ...really?

Q.E.D. says:

02:25pm | 12/01/10

1. what is the risk of disease from the imaging process - particularly relevant to frequent flyers?
2. why has a terrorist never been identified with the current screening methods?

This is just another unproven (and potentially deadly) method of risk management.

I’m with red robin, might as well hire anaesthetists!

Sadhbh Warren says:

02:39pm | 12/01/10

A quick and unscientific scan of the comments thread reveals something interesting - the comments made earlier in morning are more likely to favourable of scanning, those later in the day negative.

So maybe the scanners should only run until 11am? Enough time to clear the morning business rush though anyway…

davido says:

02:41pm | 12/01/10

I disagree.

It seems that people are blindly trading their liberty on a dubious promise of added security.

It may also be possible that this is a case of having to have the latest technology whether it is worth it or not.

I notice that airlines have NOT INTRODUCED the bomb-proof baggage containers that have been available for years.

The Original AJ says:

03:40pm | 12/01/10

It’s interesting to hear from the ‘if it stops JUST ONE TERRORIST, then it’s worth it’ crowd.  Keep in mind, that to catch the underwear bomber (who, as far as I’m aware, didn’t have anything metallic in his underpants), you’d all need to be, well, rather thoroughly groped before you got on the plane.  Are you absolutely sure you want a grossly underpaid security employee sticking his (or her, but most likely his) hands down your pants, in order to prevent the incredibly unlikely scenario of someone trying to blow up the plane?

Which, in turn, raises interesting questions as to whether Business and First Class customers can request a happy ending.

DG says:

03:45pm | 12/01/10

For those that are concerned about being seen - I am sure that it will be possible to find clothes that confound the rays fired by the scanner and protect you from that radiation. If you make that choice expect a strip search and a rubber glove.

The basic premise seems to be that “I have the right to get on a plane without being screened for explosives or other prohibited devices”? My reply is “No. You don’t”. If you want to engage in air travel you undergo the relevant screening just as if you wish to enter a Court house or various other places. The same way athletes are screened for drugs, drivers randomly screened for alcohol and train drivers scanned for drugs or alcohol. Basically,  If you don’t want to be screened, don’t participate in the activity that requires you to be scanned. Now if the screening related to a fundamental right (i.e screened before being granted your rights, that would be worthy of protest).

acker says:

03:51pm | 12/01/10

@Sadhbh Warren 03:39pm ...Might be the time lag it takes word of mouth in some of the Civil Liberties chat rooms to send troops to this site Sadhbh….They can always exercise their civil liberties and refuse to fly..I doubt if the majority would care

mona says:

04:06pm | 12/01/10

When has an Australian flight ever been blown up or threatened to have been blown up? I think we have to worry more about Qantas planes falling out of the sky due to shoddy airplanes.

Plus - no, you have no right to look at, touch or invade my body in anyway without my permission. That’s every single woman man and child’s fundamental right, which this would break big time.

And what about religious people, like Muslim men and women who cover themselves on the basis of modesty?

bobb says:

06:29pm | 12/01/10

So we all have to run the risk of developing or reactivating cancer or cancer cells. Are they willing to give iron clad guarantees there’s no risk? Will the government indemnify me against this? Will they pay for my loss of earnings if I fall ill or die? I am a frequent flyer - so potentially I may get scanned 6-8 times per week. No way padre - smells like a big ‘ol boycott to me.  My kids won’t be scanned either. Cigarettes were ‘safe’ at one time too.

loui says:

06:38pm | 12/01/10

Don’t you love how the know it all’s turn around and say like it or lump it - if you don’t get scanned then don’t fly? Since when did Australians who exercise their rights and want to protect their health become the ‘problem?’

The root cause of all this is we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel and Palestine are at war. Yemen and other hot spots are festering with a millions of potential terrorists. Do you all think they will all stop just because we have scanners? Your chance of being blown up on a flight is minuscule compared with dying in a car crash. EVENTUALLY - we have to address the actual problems. Our governments are a perpetual state of war. It’s war on terror. And guess what it hasn’t reduced the risk one iota.

DM says:

10:16pm | 12/01/10

You will not be any safer by having these scanners installed.  They do NOT detect explosives.

It is simply security theatre to make you feel better.

Your chances of being blown up by terrorists on an airplane is virtually nil.

The world survived all the previous waves of idiot terrorists and this one is no different.

Julian Thomas says:

10:19pm | 12/01/10

Your comment:I luv it how the tards go on about the x-rays, look up cosmic radiation, you get a 100 plus times more x-rays from flying melbourne to sydney than one of these scans, there were available in the late 90s, the US passengers were surveyed and rejected their use, and got 911, go figure

Taz says:

10:25pm | 12/01/10

I like the messages in tin foil idea though this brings about the other ideas of selling the space to advertisers!

Anyone shy about their genitalia can always stuff a roll of pork in there and it’ll show up the same, be sure to line it up or you will look like a mutant, double the fun!

Jason says:

12:17am | 13/01/10

I’m all for security in aviation and really have nothing to be embarrassed about , but having been through cancer, and all it’s associated hundreds of x-rays, multiple ct and pet scans and radiation treatments - where are my rights with regards excessive radiation?  Can I choose an alternative security scan to reduce my exposure?  What about radiation exposure for frequent flyers?

Q.E.D. says:

07:28am | 13/01/10

@ Julian Thomas says:11:19pm | 12/01/10

“Your comment:I luv it how the tards go on about the x-rays, look up cosmic radiation, you get a 100 plus times more x-rays from flying melbourne to sydney than one of these scans, there were available in the late 90s, the US passengers were surveyed and rejected their use, and got 911, go figure”

So, Julian, we could expect to be exposed to any number of x-rays from other sources, so long as the exposure is less than flying? That’s a pretty stupid argument.

Stiffy says:

08:17am | 13/01/10

Usually x rays on people are associated with medicine. If the screening is anything like the states it will be conducted by federal government security employees. Screening should be based upon known inteligence and to a lesser degree upon an intuitive discretion. However, knowing our Federal Government, labor or future coalition, the screening will be outsourced to a private company who will employ some knuckle drager to do the screening.
How long will it be before airlines will offer passengers the opportunity to have a full mediscan at the security point with full prudential approval as to meeting the necessary security screen. Conducted by a qualified radiologist and a written report produced for your doctor. Could save some lives.

Matt says:

11:38am | 13/01/10

Some of you people make me sick.

How far are you willing to go to “feel” safe? How is it that everytime there’s a security increase something always happens afterwards, blamed on lack of security and then security is beefed up again?

This whole argument is based on a lie. Kurt Haskell, a passenger on flight 253 saw Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab get on the plane without a passport and with the assistance of a sharply-dressed Indian man.

When Kurt asked the FBI for the footage of the terminal / gate, they refused, why?! Prove him wrong!

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_says_at_l.html

Will you accept taser-bracelets next? That store your pasenger info for “easy-access” and “secure” passage through security. If one passenger on the plane gets out of line, buzzzzzzzz. So I do believe you people who call yourselves “free” will accept such a slavish device.

Numbered tattoos?

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” Benjamin Franklin

Matt says:

12:11pm | 13/01/10

@acker says: 04:51pm

Being against it doesn’t make you a civil libertarian. It just makes you a terrorist.

acker says:

02:18pm | 13/01/10

@Matt says: 01.11pm….where did I say that Matt ???
@acker says: 04:51 says “Might be the time lag it takes word of mouth in some of the Civil Liberties chat rooms to send troops to this site Sadhbh….They can always exercise their civil liberties and refuse to fly..I doubt if the majority would care”

the cake is a lie says:

04:24pm | 13/01/10

If we were really serious about making airline travel safer, we would immediately cease and desist from this incessant infatuation with meddling into the internal affairs of foreign countries, stop invading and occupying foreign countries, and stop our own Government from sticking their noses where they don’t belong–which only serves to agitate the world against us and other western countries.

We’d stop giving out travel visas to people from countries sympathetic to terrorists; seal the Australian border – and allow pilots, policemen, and any other citizen lawfully qualified to carry a firearm to carry those weapons on board the aircraft. (It was, after all, an American citizen–not an Air Marshal or other federal agent–that stopped and subdued Abdulmutallab.)

But instead, we continue to push the envelope toward a police state. One could even get the idea that our government may actually want terrorists to enter our country and board our airplanes so that they might use them as an excuse to exact greater and greater acts of oppression upon the citizenry.

It appears to me that the lunatics are running the asylum.
Can’t wait for that cancer scan.

jacks says:

12:01pm | 14/01/10

“Full-body scanners operating in 19 U.S. airports can STORE and EXPORT captured images…”

That’s right STORE and EXPORT.
Do you want YOUR naked image STORED AND EXPORTED GOD KNOWS WHERE? Just think about it. YOUR naked image sent and store where and by whom?  Why are we being criminally profiled?  Why is there a perpetual need to keep the populace in fear?