2046 Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 Body scanners unveiled at JFK Airport; Homeland Security Sect. Janet Napolitano doesn't volunteer Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_body_scanners_unveiled_at_jfk_airport_homeland_security_sect_janet_napolitano_do.html#ixzz13FBjaiFe "And the machines are set so that no image is retained." Of course, that is a lie, as multiple reports have been made to the contrary. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/body-scan-images-from-sec_n_670170.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCSL Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 Going through one is optional for all travelers What is the point of having it in airports then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted October 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 What is the point of having it in airports then? Security theater. Plus Michael Chertoff made millions selling them to the TSA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 What is the point of having it in airports then? It speeds up boarding for those who do agree to go through them, and leaves only the rest to be searched through other means. So it makes the whole process faster and more efficient. Body scanners, as a technology, do work, and if the government didn't force them on the industry, I'm sure they would still be a viable option for many airports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCSL Posted October 25, 2010 Report Share Posted October 25, 2010 It speeds up boarding for those who do agree to go through them In that case it makes sense. The idea of how this would work is rather funny to me. In essence you are trading a nude photo of yourself for faster access into the terminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th3ranger Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 If these are voluntary, and would better help detect terrorists, couldn't a terrorist just choose to not go though one? Are they not completely pointless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 (edited) If these are voluntary, and would better help detect terrorists, couldn't a terrorist just choose to not go though one? Are they not completely pointless? I suppose you could argue that we will now know which line any potential terrorists will be in. edit--did she actually make a decision to not try them when asked; or did she just not go jump into the machine? Edited October 26, 2010 by mmmcannibalism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCSL Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 If these are voluntary, and would better help detect terrorists, couldn't a terrorist just choose to not go though one? Are they not completely pointless? As Jake pointed out, there would be an alternative to the body scanners. The substitute would probably be just as thorough, but take longer thus creating the incentive for going in the body scanner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted October 26, 2010 Report Share Posted October 26, 2010 no guiz, it's da gubbermint conspeeracie again/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.