JFK, LAX To Test Millimeter-Wave Scanners

Narrative Fallacy writes "The Transportation Security Administration has announced that it's beginning pilot tests of millimeter wave scanning technology at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) that allow TSA personnel to see concealed weapons and other items that may be hidden beneath clothes. TSA Administrator Kip Hawley says that that the potentially revealing body scans (YouTube) would not be stored and that 90% of passengers subject to secondary screening opt for a millimeter wave scan over a pat-down. The agency added that security officers viewing the scans would do so remotely, where they will not be able to recognize passengers but will be able to trigger an alarm if needed. The agency also said that a blurring algorithm is applied to passengers' faces in scanned images as an additional privacy protection."

Comments

Re:bullshit

[electrictroy]

>>>"We don't trust them ... we've entrusted them because we have no other choice."

Yes you do:

- You could buy healthcare using your OWN money, rather than raiding your neighbors' wallets (universal healthcare) to pay the bill for you. I pay my own healthcare with my own money; it works great.

- You could educate yourself the way people educated themselves circa 1900: Buy books; read them. (Attend a *privately-run* college if you are planning a higher-level career, as did people like Jefferson, Madison, Edison, Clinton.)

- You could create your OWN retirement plan by saving money in the bank (or dig a hole in your backyard if you don't trust the bank), rather than support the SS Pyramid Scheme. At the end, you'd have far more money and far more independence (it's your money, not somebody else's).

You DO have choices.
You just don't want to exercise them,
prefering to trust a bunch of strangers in D.C. to take care of you.

Re:Option to opt-out

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I'll quote a small bit from the Wikipedia article that you cited but apparently failed to read:

The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures... So, in your eyes, asking someone to submit to a thorough search of their person and belongings in order to guard against the possession of bombs (see Pan Am Flight 103), boxcutters (see 9/11) or guns (more than I can easily cite), is...unreasonable. Yeah...right...Okaaay. Perhaps one day you'll get your wish. Maybe it'll be the day Abdullah and Hassan decide to blow up the plane you're riding in. For you I'd shed no tears as it would be no great loss, but it would be a tragedy for the rest of the passengers and crew.

As for your other locations, a nightclub is a private business. It can do whatever it wants with regards to entrance requirements for patronage, subject to certain civil rights criteria such as sex, race, and so forth. Security is not included in these criteria. Political rallies and schools are again cases where large numbers of people are gathered in an uncontrolled setting. Requiring searches for dangerous weapons (knives, guns, etc) is prudent, not unreasonable. Courts both liberal and conservative have upheld this tenet since the founding of the country.

I get the feeling you're one of those fools who thinks the entire Bill of Rights is carte blanche to do pretty much whatever you want. I'll remind you that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is illegal, prudently banned in the interests of public safety. Your rights are not absolute. They are subject to the test of reasonability. For you to suggest that a pre-boarding search is unreasonable is to suggest otherwise, and you're both wrong and foolish to do so.

Re:Option to opt-out

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I generally make it a habit not to bother replying to AC's like yourself, but since you're going to quote the Rt. Hon. Srinivasa Sastri, I felt compelled to reply.

The Rowlatt Bill was "passed on the recommendations of the Rowlatt commission, named for its chairman, British judge Sir Sidney Rowlatt, this act effectively authorized the government to imprison, without trial, any person suspected of terrorism living in the Raj." This is taken from the Wikipedia article on the Rowlatt Act, which is what the Bill became when it passed into law.

The Rowlatt Act was intended to put down political unrest by imprisoning those who acted against the government's wishes. Now, are you actually going to try and draw a parallel between being searched for dangerous items before boarding an airplane and being imprisoned without a trial for supposed anti-government activities? Do you not realize the absolute stupidity of what you're trying to conjoin? Try picking an analogy that's sensible next time.

Re:Option to opt-out

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I hereby state you've lost the argument, citing Godwin's Law as the relevant rule being violated. Go look it up, if you're not too busy wondering who's got a copy of Mein Kampf handy.

Re:Option to opt-out

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Something I saw someplace once... Saw, but apparently didn't read. You have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy and against unreasonable search or seizure. Reading comprehension is not only fun, it might actually improve your intellect! I can say this with a great deal of confidence since you're so obviously deficient in the aforementioned category. You've nowhere to go but up!

Screening someone for bombs, guns, and knives before boarding a speeding, pressurized metal tube full of defenseless people -- six vertical miles from any kind of law enforcement or lawful protection -- is unreasonable in your view? What kind of loon are you, anyway?

Re:Option to opt-out

[prisoner-of-enigma]

How can you travel to anywhere in the US without taking a plane? We have these marvelous inventions called cars. Perhaps you've heard of them. But just in case you cannot understand sarcasm, please point to me the place in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to fly from point A to point B. You won't find it, but please waste as much time as you can while trying.

I see you quoted two terrorist events. Could you give a number that will show how it is more likely than winning the lottery? This line of reasoning is idiotic, tantamount to saying "I don't know why there are so many people in jail since crime is so low." Have you ever stopped to consider the concept of cause and effect? Maybe, just maybe, these events aren't commonplace because we have security in place. Maybe the above referenced events would never have happened had additional security been in place. You seem to think that none of it is needed because you haven't been blow up or hijacked yet. Pity you can't experience the results of your absurd suggestion without endangering others, otherwise I'd be all in favor of it.

And explain to me how it is constitutional that "eastern looking" people systematicaly spend twice the time boarding their plane (when they can). Apocryphal. You show me hard statistics proving it and I'll listen. Until then, you're full of it.

Well that answers my question about your fear of racial discrimination I guess. Let's see: Pan Am 103 blown up by...hmmm...Muslims? 9/11 orchestrated by...Muslims? Achille Lauro, the Israeli Olympic athletes, the Beslan school massacres, ethnic cleansing, and many more too numerous to list, all done by...Muslims? Gosh, one must be insane to draw any conclusions from this. Idiot. You ignore reality at your peril.