Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Approves Unified Full Body Scanner Regulations

Posted by Unknown on from the security-not-quite-worth-cancer dept.

OverTheGeicoE writes "The European Union has adopted a proposal to regulate airport body scanners at Member State airports. No Member State or airport is obligated to use scanners, but if they do, the scanners must conform to new European Union standards. Here's a partial list: Scanners must not store, retain, copy, print, or retrieve passenger images; the image viewer must be in a remote location; passengers must be informed how the scanners are being controlled; and can opt out if they choose. Perhaps most importantly: X-ray scanners are banned 'in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety.'"

52 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. EU still has some sense left, compared to US by CmdrPony · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not only is EU not requiring their use, they are actually putting several limitations on how they're used and saying citizens can opt-out. Good job, EU!

    Now, if someone would just kick UK out of EU. It's almost as bad as US.

    1. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Sovejet Europe government controlls commerce.

      Disclaimer: I am European and I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism. I do think these regulations are a good plan.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    2. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Are you sure you're not referring to "balance between socialism and capitalism" as it is in Northern Europe at the moment?

    3. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gordon Brown gave up part of the rebate a few years ago, we still put far more in than we get out even with the rebate and always have. Europe does not by any measure pay for the UK, France's farming subsidies are the elephant in the room in this respect if anything.

      The UK very much makes a loss in terms of pure money pumped into the EU vs. money returned via EU initiatives by a longshot, the benefit we get out (as is the case for others that put in more than they get out, like Germany) is easier access to the European markets so it comes back and pays for itself in terms of improved trade and better bargaining terms with the rest of the world as the EU can speak as one entity on many topics.

      Personally I think it's worth it, but if EU nations want rid of us then have fun trying to fill the funding shortfall that's used to help the poorer Eurozone economies improve like Romania, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania etc. I'm sure Germany will be more than happy to spend even more money financing the rest of Europe and France will enjoy being forced to give up it's farming subsidies.

      No really, the UK is a backbone economy for the EU, like both France and Germany are. The EU would be massively weaker and poorer without it.

    4. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.

      The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now. We don't have laws against headscarfs and stuff either which is something. Even outside Europe now that Harper is in in Canada I think the UK is doing fairly well, we're certainly in a much better place than we were under Brown's authoritarian rule 2 years ago.

      I suppose you can still hold a grudge over the UK for Iraq, but we haven't been there for a few years now, we're still in Afghanistan, like the rest of Europe. I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent. It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed. There's still a long way to go of course, but then, find me a country where there isn't.

    5. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by mitashki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I am European and I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism.

      Actually I do believe the BEST government would use the good ideas from both and refuse to follow the ideologies and propaganda from both. For the record I am an European too (whatever it might mean these days).

      --
      "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail."
    6. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by johnjaydk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.

      +5 funny

      The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan who is wide seen as a bug in search of a windshield.

      Total Debt to GDP ratios

      Sorry to burst Your bubble but the bond market will discover this fact eventually.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    7. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by peppepz · · Score: 5, Informative
      According to the site of the european parliament, in the 2010 balance of the European Union, the "net contributors" to the EU are:
      1) Germany (19.6 %)
      2) France (18%)
      3) Italy (13.9 %)
      4) United Kingdom (10.4%)
      5) Spain (9.6%)

      Of course these numbers aren't too meaningful, because they don't track the indirect benefits that a member country enjoys for being in the EU. For example, the import fees paid by a country that is importing goods for China, appear as paid by that country in the balance, but they will actually be paid by the final customers of those goods in reality.

      But you can read that the image of France being a burden for other member states because of its agriculture subsidies is wrong: they pay to the EU more than what they actually receive, and in particular they pay almost twice as much as the UK.

      The problem with the UK in the EU is not economic, it's their political dissent every time that an EU treaty is to be made. Which stems from the fact that probably, most of the UK population is against the EU. I think the UK shoud solve this problem by clearly asking their citizens if they really want to be inside the EU. If the answer is negative, then the UK should withdraw from the union and leave it to the states who are actually interested in its construction.

      I'd rather take an EU that is 10% poorer but that works, instead of one that never acts because every decision is shot down by the crossed vetoes of the member states.

      The "two-speeds" union that is starting to delineate, with the members of the Euro zone having special government structures, might be a good step in this direction; but it's still too soon to tell.

    8. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Informative

      The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan

      The "total debt to GDP ratio" may be only slightly below japan but the government debt is a MUCH smaller proportion of the total debt than with japan.

      But more important than the amount of debt is what that debt is denominated in. If a government has debts denominated in their own currency they can order their central bank (in practice they probably won't even need to make the order) to offer them unlimited loans at a fixed interest rate so the only way they will default is if they chose to do so.

      OTOH if a government has large debts denominated in a currency under outside control they are at the mercy of the countries that control those currencies. That is why greece and italy are in so much trouble, they sacrificed their financial sovereignty by joining the Euro.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    9. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those figures you point to are distorted by our disproportionately large financial sector. Which given that they're backed by gov.uk means that they actually have a vested interest in keeping our bond prices stable. As far as actually managing our government debt, we do quite well, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15717770

      A big problem with both Italian (and French debt) is that a lot of it is short-term and constantly has to be renewed. Hence depending on the given prevailing market circumstances their actual lending costs as they auction off more bonds can sky rocket. Because UK's debt is more long-term (averaging 13 years maturity) it gives a greater opportunity to get our shit together, and consequently gives the market less reason to panic.

    10. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Raumkraut · · Score: 2

      Last I heard this was not true. You absolutely can opt out of being scanned at Manchester. Of course, if you do so, you'll also be opting out of catching your flight...

      Alas, I suspect that the UK government will, if at all possible (and even if not), interpret the EU's requirement for the right to opt out of scanning in a similar fashion.

    11. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It took a while to find the figures you cite, but I found them here. You've mistakenly, or dishonestly misrepresented them, they are not net contribution figures:

      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/headlines/content/20080605FCS31027/5/html/What-about-the-Net-Contributors%E2%80%9D

      Whilst the article is about net contribution it actually avoids the question and those specific figures merely state the amount paid in, not the net amount once returns are received. Once this is taken into account France's contribution drops drastically. Whilst France has improved it's net contribution in recent years you can see the disparity here from back in 2007 under net contribution:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

      Or the cold hard historical figures for every year between 1999 - 2007 here if you prefer:

      http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/

      "The problem with the UK in the EU is not economic, it's their political dissent every time that an EU treaty is to be made. Which stems from the fact that probably, most of the UK population is against the EU."

      I'm not sure what you mean here, most countries in the EU have a degree of euroscepticism, but the UK ratified the Lisbon treaty with far less hassle than many other countries that outright voted against it in it's original form. Do you not remember Ireland having to run the referendum on it twice because they said no the first time?

      Whilst recent polls have shown 49% support leaving the EU and only 40% definitely staying in I don't think come a referendum we would leave, because these polls were commissioned against a background of Euroscepticism - UKIP and far right wing Tories stoking things up against the background of the Euro appearing on the verge of collapse. I think the fact they could still only muster 49% to leave in self interest commissioned polls against that background is quite telling. That's ignoring the fact any referendum would be backed by a campaign pointing out all the Tory/UKIP FUD and how it's actually about bringing back things like employment law so the average Joe can be forced to work more than 48hours in a week benefiting corporations and not the average citizen. Really, less than half against the background of potential Euro collapse and a massive one sided FUD offensive that's been led up to by a year or two long FUD offensive? that's pretty weak.

      "I'd rather take an EU that is 10% poorer but that works, instead of one that never acts because every decision is shot down by the crossed vetoes of the member states."

      And you think the UK is a stalling point here? really? You only have to look at the painfully slow inaction over the Euro to see the UK is far from Europe's worst offender in acting with haste, and Eastern European and Mediterranean nations bickering over past rivalries be it Cyprus blocking Turkey's entry, or the ex-Yugoslav nations blocking each other.

      If I've learnt anything over the years it's that alternating opinions blocking legislation is almost always a good thing. When legislation is rammed through without care for minority opinions it's rarely good legislation, and when it's passed because everyone agrees it's generally good.

      I'd like to see decreases euro-scepticism in our country and I think it'll come with time, but I think the UK being in the EU is far better for both the UK and the EU. It's mutually beneficial for everyone.

    12. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OTOH if a government has large debts denominated in a currency under outside control they are at the mercy of the countries that control those currencies. That is why greece and italy are in so much trouble, they sacrificed their financial sovereignty by joining the Euro.

      Greece is in trouble because IT FUCKING LIED about its financial condition to the EU before adopting the Euro. Had they told the truth, the rest of the EU would have left them to rot (most probably). Italy didn't lie about its finances, they made real sacrifices to adopt the Euro, and frankly without it Italy would have been in for the worse.

    13. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by peppepz · · Score: 2

      You've mistakenly, or dishonestly misrepresented them,

      IMHO, mutual respect is the basis for any conversation. That said, if you have better data, show them. The ones you cite coming from the British public television are from five years ago, and still show France paying more than they receive, and thus I stilll don't see how they demonstrate that France needs UK's money to go on.

      I'm not sure what you mean here, most countries in the EU have a degree of euroscepticism, but the UK ratified the Lisbon treaty with far less hassle than many other countries that outright voted against it in it's original form. Do you not remember Ireland having to run the referendum on it twice because they said no the first time?

      The latest official eurobarometer survey (page 47) says that 22% of the UK citizens have a positive view of the EU. That's _the lowest value_ registered in the whole area composed by the EU and the non-EU countries that are interested in joining the EU in the near future. The EU average is 40%. For comparison, Germany is at 38%. Italy is at 39%. France is at 41%.

      The UK ratified the Lisbon treaty quickly because, unlike Ireland, they did not hold a referendum. Is your opinion that such a referendum would have passed, when only 22% of British people have a fully positive view of the EU?

      And you think the UK is a stalling point here? really?

      Not the only one. It is one of the many, and as the most euro-sceptic country inside the EU, it's a considerable one. What's the country that invariantly has some opt-out in every important treaty of the EU? Including the treaty of Lisbon?

      If I've learnt anything over the years it's that alternating opinions blocking legislation is almost always a good thing. When legislation is rammed through without care for minority opinions it's rarely good legislation, and when it's passed because everyone agrees it's generally good.

      You can't administer even a condominium when every house owner has a right of veto. How can we suppose to be able to govern a continent, and one with so many different and strong cultures such as the EU, under the same premises? In fact, problems of all kinds keep hitting the EU while the member states are either still quarreling or moving dispersedly.

      I'd like to see decreases euro-scepticism in our country

      I'd like it too, because I think that Britain is an important part of Europe's culture and history. I like being able to live and work there without hassles. And I feel that there's more that we have in common, compared to what we don't share. But I _do not_ want the people of the UK to be forced into the EU against their will, because history shows that government-enforced cohabitations end up badly sooner or later (Yugoslavia: violent breakup; Czechoslovakia: peaceful split; Belgium: "in-house divorce"). If now they aren't convinced, it's better for them to stay at the window and look at how the others do, and then join later if they do appreciate the end results.

    14. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Xest · · Score: 2

      "and thus I stilll don't see how they demonstrate that France needs UK's money to go on."

      I never said this, I'm not claiming France is subsidised by the UK, I simply made the point that if someone is worried about UK rebate, then they should be even more concerned about French farming subsidies and that the UK most certainly does pay it's fair share, arguably more so than other members, rebate or not.

      "The UK ratified the Lisbon treaty quickly because, unlike Ireland, they did not hold a referendum. Is your opinion that such a referendum would have passed, when only 22% of British people have a fully positive view of the EU?"

      Not at all, your concern seemed to be that the UK is a hindrance to the EU, I was merely making the point that our government recognises the importance of it and is much less a hindrance than many other EU governments. It seemed odd to attack the UK over this, when there are much bigger offenders in the EU.

      The problem is that in the UK we're an inherently pessimistic set of people, we like to bitch and moan, but when it comes to people tend to realise that well, maybe, actually, it's not that bad after all.

      Of course the right wingers thrive on this, they feed on it, really the BNP are just tha Nazis by a different name, UKIP are just the BNP in nicer suits and with bigger houses, and frankly the right wing Tories are just a set of UKIPers who prefer the power of being in an electable party of their actual principles to jump to UKIP.

      But don't assume that because the far right plays on Britain's pessimistic attitude that when it comes to, when Brits realise that without European Union membership jobs will go as companies leave Britain to mainland Europe, Scotland will have every justification to split from the UK and ironically join the EU, somewhat isolating us on our own island, the economy will weaken as skilled people leave the UK decreasing benefits and making the country poorer, and the chavs will have less easy travel to Southern Spain on their alcohol fuelled holidays, that the British people wont stop and think well hang on, maybe the EU is actually kind of a good thing. If we do ever have a referendum, and the UK opts to leave the EU, I'll be leaving the UK behind despite having lived here all my life, if not only because it'll be fucked as a nation, but I genuinely don't think it'll ever come to that.

      As an aside, I don't know where that 22% figure comes from in the eurobarometer survey, it seems odd that it'd be so much drastically lower than polls commissioned by eurosceptics at a time of hyped up euroscepticism in the UK. Perhaps this simply demonstrates my point that when people in the UK are really pushed on the subject they do begin to recognise the benefits of it and drop the pessimism.

      Besides, on a more positive note most Eurosceptics I've met in my life tend to be the much older generations 60+. Not to worry, they'll be dead soon :)

    15. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      Nope. Not a FUD. Wanna bet?

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15653282 - trade is flagging,
      http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt - debt is growing.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/31/business-confidence-lowest-for-30-months - business confidence craters.
      Deficits are not significantly affected.

      However, economy has slowed down into almost a double-dip so lost revenue growth over 10 years would be more than "savings" from austerity.

      So, remind me, what austerity program tries to achieve? I distinctly remember words like 'business confidence' and 'spur the investments' - both have demonstrably failed to happen.

    16. Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      I agree that the UK economy hardly smells of roses, but there is one major difference in that if it's currently private-sector debt we're talking about, there is always another option, even if it has side effects that may not be desirable: you can let the big financial players who made bad investments lose their money and, if necessary, fail.

      I don't understand enough serious economics and international politics to know why the big economic powers didn't do this right from the start, and whether there is a genuine economic justification for the bail-outs or it really was down to politics and backroom deals. It's obviously not as simple as the hang-the-bankers brigade tend to see it, but it seems to me that they are correct about one fundamental thing: by bailing out (some of) the banks, governments have effectively undermined the basic premise of capitalism by leaving private interests with much of the reward but the public with much of the risk.

      Now we seem to have taken things a step further, so we're expecting wealthy Eurozone nations (Germany, for example) to bail out not only the banks based in their own countries but also the banks based in other countries (not necessarily within the Eurozone), because those other banks were foolish enough to lend money to another Eurozone country still (Greece, for example) that was unlikely to pay it back. This effectively leaves the German (for example) taxpayer subsidising foreign investors who have been doing quite nicely off the high interest rates on Greek (for example) government debt for a while but should now be paying the piper, all because Germany and Greece share a common currency in the Euro so if the Greek economy fails then Germany gets hurt too.

      Now, the UK is outside the Euro, and is refusing to directly fund any Eurozone government bail-outs. Moreover, the financial giants in the City seem to have relatively limited exposure to the most risky Eurozone government debt, so the government can probably let them take their licks and eat their humble pie without risking serious long-term damage to the UK economy. In that context, there really are big differences between the UK's financial strength and that of several other G20 nations who are more closely tied up with the whole Euro mess.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  2. Sometimes they get it right by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In between ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest, sometimes they do something right. Thanks EU :-)

    Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane? There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.

    1. Re:Sometimes they get it right by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    2. Re:Sometimes they get it right by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.

      Are you American? And are you claiming that freedom and citizens rights are an American invention? Because I am European, and we had such Freedom when you were just a couple of tiny villages we like to call colonies, and when the majority of the native Americans were still alive and thriving.

      I'll give an example: the Dutch fight for freedom in the 16th/17th century. Already in the 15th century, the Dutch were free. Amsterdam was rules by citizens, not by a nobleman or clergyman. Citizens. And America hadn't even been discovered. And this idea spread throughout the entire country, which rebelled against the religious oppressive Spanish and became free.

      Or how about the French revolution? English parliament? You do know that democracy was already in use in the ancient Greek times, do you?

      If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.

    3. Re:Sometimes they get it right by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.

    4. Re:Sometimes they get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.

      Hé, les américains! disparaissez de ma pelouse!

    5. Re:Sometimes they get it right by nickco3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It may shock you to learn this, but your home country's stated ideals are all European in origin.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    6. Re:Sometimes they get it right by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      People are made (partly) of water, while splitting it would end their life. It has been demonstrated that terrorists are willing to end their lives for their cause, so if you limit their availability of water they might simply go on and split their own water.
      I say: ban humans on planes!

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    7. Re:Sometimes they get it right by nickco3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Eh? It's the other way round I'm afraid. The french were heavily influenced by what happened in America. Check the dates!

      The US Bill of Rights was not adopted until August 21, 1789. These are all amendments, remember, for some reason they didn't make it into the original document.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    8. Re:Sometimes they get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uhh, you haven't heard of the American Eminent Domain laws have you? That is used to grab property and gun control laws are rife in most states. 'Live Free or Die' only applies to Wisconsin. The 'underground railway' has indeed been running for centuries From the USA To Canada, not the other way around.

      The Statue of Libertas in New York, was a present from a Frenchman (G. Eiffel) and was probably meant as a joke...

    9. Re:Sometimes they get it right by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Informative

      where (in theory) the government can't expropriate your property for public interest

      Eminent domain.
      Kelo v. City of New London decision.
      Asset forfeiture (especially coupled with drug excuse).

    10. Re:Sometimes they get it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reason is that the founders basically said that "All rights not in this document go to its citizens and can be further adjusted by its state governments" but some states were worried that there wasn't a "Bill of Rights." The founders initially resisted because they felt like it would limit rights because it would make it seem like you get these rights but not others.

      Which is basically what has happened. If it's not in the Bill of Rights, you really have to fight for it to be considered a "right." Not only that, but the federal government size/scope exploded upon the "interstate commerce" line being interpreted that the federal government basically gets to do everything it wants. We have totally warped what the original design of the USA was and now we have a dominating federal government with very little flexibility and power still passed to the states.

    11. Re:Sometimes they get it right by DrXym · · Score: 2

      The US enshrines freedom of speech but it doesn't enshrine an individual's right to privacy. The EU does via the Directive on Data Protection so it offers a lot more protections to individuals. It prevents some of the abuses that we see mentioned in the US. e.g. companies reading their employees private email without permission, personal information being used outside of its stated purpose, or being sold and merged without a user's permission, etc. The US does have some protections in place around some particular areas, e.g. personal health information, HIPAA and protections to curb nuisance caused by personal data such as junk faxes, telemarketers. But its nothing compared to Europe.

    12. Re:Sometimes they get it right by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have one thing to say about who's representing who's ideals?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

      Remember that the Pilgrim Fathers left England because they wanted less religious freedom. They wanted everyone to follow their brand.

    13. Re:Sometimes they get it right by alfredos · · Score: 2

      you can have guns

      You say that as if it was a great thing. What is so cool about everyone in a country with a nine-digit population (which statistically makes the percentage of insane people millions) being able to have deadly weapons with them at all times?

      Personally, in that regard I feel much more secure in my country (which is in the EU, by the way) because people can carry guns if: (a) they work for the police, (b) they work for the army (and then not at all times) or (c) has been life-threatened, and a judge decides the threat is serious. All of them have to pass an exam to assess their suitability to carry guns, kind of ensures his/her sanity. Add to that another special permit for sports, which does also require an examination, and allows only for certain classes of weapons and ammunitions. Net result? No guns in the streets. Almost no deaths by gunfire. When there is a shot in the street, it hits the news because it's so rare.

    14. Re:Sometimes they get it right by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      The problem is, most Americans have never heard of Locke these days, even though the so-called "American Ideals" are basically a restatement of the ideas he put on paper in the 16th century, and were acknowledged to be so by the founding fathers of his country.

    15. Re:Sometimes they get it right by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And FYI, the French revolution came long after the American one. You'd have done better to talk about the French enlightenment, and better still to learn history before lecturing on it.

      You do realize that the American revolution was actually a French revolution, right? Bought and paid for by the French, won by virtue of the fact that the British were too busy beating up the French, and led by military leaders who were trained by a French general (an openly gay one, at that). The Germans had a hand in providing some of the funding and training as well (which is why the language of commerce in the US was very nearly German, not English), but basically, if it weren't for the French providing a distraction for the English back in Europe, the American revolution never would have succeeded. Don't believe me? Look up the campaign from 1812-1814, when Madison decided to annex Canada. The story about why the White House is painted white came from that war....

    16. Re:Sometimes they get it right by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      So, please tell me, do you picture this happening in the US? The way the US is going it wouldn't surprise me that shit like this has happened in the 20th century, but I doubt very much stuff like this happened *under the full protection of the law* before FDR times.

      Did you read the case the grandparent cited? Kelo v. City of New London upheld (at the supreme court level) the right of the state to use eminent domain laws to transfer ownership of land between private parties. This ruling means that any use that can possibly be justified - however vaguely - as serving the public interest is legal according to the fifth amendment.

      If your argument is that the USA has a bit of paper that protects your rights, but doesn't enforce it, and is therefore good, then I think you won't find many supporters...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:Sometimes they get it right by nickco3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The EU has done more to spread freedom and democracy than any other organisation on Earth. It projects soft power with a single carrot, the offer of membership.

      The first success was rehabilitating Germany after the War. Spain, Portugal and Greece all used to be military dictatorships. Now happy, prosperous, modern democratic states. Admittedly there's been some unrest recently in Greece, but there is zero possibility of another military coup, it will stay free and democratic no matter what. That's because of the larger structure it belongs to.

      Then it rehabilitated central and eastern Europe. All the countries that were offered membership are free and democratic. Every one of them. Doesn't that strike you as odd? All the non-EU candidates (Ukraine, Russia) are not. Coincidence?

      Turkey is far nicer place than it used be. The army stays out of politcs. The Kurds and other minorities are being treated reasonably. All thanks to EU negotiators banging on about human rights during 30 years of talks.

      What other organisation can boast such an effective record at democratisation?

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
  3. I wish more people.... by surfdaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....would opt out. I'm not an easily paranoid type, but I resent getting x-rayed for non-medical reasons. It's apparent that the correct research has not been done on the safety, and even if the chances of risk are slim, why take the chance? It's reactive security anyway. Opting out is my own little method of civil disobedience. If everybody went for the pat-down the whole system would collapse and they would have to abandon those damn xray scanners.

    1. Re:I wish more people.... by gulikoza · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I opted out at the JFK flying to Paris last month. The TSA agents were very professional, the pat-down wasn't as bad as advertised here sometimes (TBH, I've gotten more invasive pat-downs at some concerts or other public events...not related to airports at all!). They even took and carried all my carry-ons from the x-ray machine to the table so I had plenty of time to put everything together (laptop...) after the pat-down. I hate it when you have to rush, putting on the shoes and belt, storing laptop.... while people are waiting behind you at the carry-on x-ray.

    2. Re:I wish more people.... by clickety6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wish more people would opt out

      I did. I just opted out of flying to the US altogether.

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    3. Re:I wish more people.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Modded funny - but I bet there are a lot more people, like myself, who are avoiding visiting the US for all the security idiocy. Whenever I need to fly (I live in Canada), I always opt for itineraries that do not go via some American airport. I'm not even sure if a transfer flight in the US means having to go through security, but frankly I don't care, nor will I take the chance if I can avoid it.

    4. Re:I wish more people.... by clickety6 · · Score: 2

      I guess that's why the USA just launched a new tourism board - specifically not to attract people to visit the US?

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    5. Re:I wish more people.... by Moskit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They made opting out opressive.

      When you opt out, first you are told that you will have to wait. How long? Agent does not know. 15minutes? 1 hour? Agent cannot answer you that question.

      You then stand aside from the queue, behind a barrier, watching as 10, 20, 50 people give up their dignity (hande hoch! raus!) in the machine. They all look at you as if you were the one giving up dignity, or were "put in a corner" like a bad child who did something wrong.

      Just before you were put aside, agent tells you that once you opt-out, you cannot go through the machine if you change your mind. You have to wait, for unspecified amount of time.

      While you wait, agent will ask you why you don't want to cooperate for security of all people. Whatever you say (privacy, radiation, health), he will tell you that you should do more research on the subject, because what you say is not true (privacy is assured, radiation is non-existent, there is no health concerns, you are just troublemaker).

      Some time later, say 10 minutes, another agent decides to come around and takes you for the manual search. Just before that he fills out a survey why you you opted out. You may notice how few people decided to do it based on how many are in survey before you.

      You can now opt for a privacy room, or let them do the pat in screening area behind the machine. Whole proces takes another 15 minutes or longer, as the agent gathers your belongings from the scanner, changes his/her gloves etc.

      Search itself is not much different than what you undergo at European airports if you are selected for secondary screening. They just pat you, paying extra attention to waistband and other thicker areas of clothes (hems, collar, sewing lines etc).

      I would say that at every step during opt-out you are being persuaded to just give up and go through the machine, and threatened by vague mentions implying you might miss your plane. It probably depends on the agent, but voice used during the procedure reminds of what a police officer who-knows-better would use on an interrogated person.

      Easy to see why sheeple just go hands-up into the naked machine.

      Travel to/from USofA those days reminds me strongly of travel to Soviet Russia in the past. All in the name of security, of course.

    6. Re:I wish more people.... by 6Yankee · · Score: 2

      As long as this nonsense exists, they'll be facing an uphill struggle. If you're a US citizen, go there, click the Apply button at the bottom left, pretend you're from the UK, and see how long it takes you to get to the point where they want money from you ($14 IIRC). After that, you have to wait to see whether you'll evn be allowed to come to the US and be fingerprinted like a common criminal. Now do it again for the wife and kids, because I didn't see any way to fill that out for a group (but I may have missed it). Oh, and this is for countries within the Visa Waiver Program.

      Faced with that, I bet a nice holiday in Europe starts to look a whole lot more attractive...

  4. Ah the supreme irony.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't it ironic that the country that epouses individuality above all and has and endemic "fear" of government is the one being fucked over security, while the europeans show a little bit of rational thought on this whole issue ?
    And for the note, we had had over the last 4 decades terrorism in europe, and we have coped to live with it. What did you say ? Our societies didn't collpase and we sure as hell didn't transform in some kind of paranoid security state.
    That 1997 Escape from New York was prophetic to a level you yankees can't even seem to fathom anymore.
    Enjoy your prison guys.

    1. Re:Ah the supreme irony.... by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's partly because, of course, the Europeans are a number of otherwise independent states so it's like a democracy on an international scale - chances are that SOMEONE will kick up a fuss about something that they disagree with and concessions will have to be made (e.g. the UK still isn't in the Euro for various reasons, Germany doesn't want to be involved in more Greek bailouts etc.).

      When you have internal opposition on the scale of national governments, it's a bit more even and controlled than when you have only internal opposition that consists of singular people (who, history has shown, can be corrupt, swayed or just chosen so that they are all of a certain age / mindset).

      That said, I've never seen a country less free than America. The only sad fact is that they don't notice it. At least the Chinese KNOW where they are (whether they care or not is another matter) but the US just don't seem to understand what they are doing to themselves and what they are letting slip under their noses. So long as they have their guns and their god, they seem perfectly happy to let a multitude of sins pass through with their approval. Hell, they were close to getting national healthcare and they managed to balls that up too.

      And the Americans I've spoken to in person just don't get this... they don't understand that, actually, the stereotype of an American that doesn't know or cares what happens beyond its borders is a little more than just a stereotype. They don't care that, even today, their government imprisons and (still probably) tortures people who haven't gone on trial by doing it on foreign soil. That's "freedom" to them, because it's applied to a different type of person - non-Americans. Try to move on a guy from sitting on Wall Street, though, and it makes the news for days on end. When they show the Olympics you only see Americans winning and *NOTHING* else.

      America has many problems, like just about every other country in the world, but it's like those countries that call themselves The Democratic Republic Of, or the People's Republic Of, etc. They are anything but. Land of the Free? Yeah, Land of the Free so long as you stay within our borders, have enough money for healthcare, and never ask for anything we don't want to give you.

    2. Re:Ah the supreme irony.... by nickco3 · · Score: 2

      It's partly because, of course, the Europeans are a number of otherwise independent states so it's like a democracy on an international scale - chances are that SOMEONE will kick up a fuss about something that they disagree with and concessions will have to be made

      Actually, the European Parliament has a much better record of standing up for citizens rights than the Member Governments, who are usually the villians in such arguments.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    3. Re:Ah the supreme irony.... by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a mental checklist of things I notice about people when I meet them.

      Almost without fail, those who openly and spontaneously profess a love for their country are those who don't actually realise (or won't admit) it's failings and are part of the cause of those failings. "America is the best country in the world" is a typical example that I often hear.

      But those who openly and spontaneously put their own country down actually care about it enough to do so and "love" their country more.

      Personally, I detest some of the things that my country has done (not least, following America into a fake "war") - I think they are abhorrent and reckless and thoughtless - but I detest them because I'm *disappointed* that it was my country that did them.

      Literally, my country should be better than that. We aren't, because we did them, but we should be. And it's because I care about what my country does to its own people, people in other countries, its reputation, etc. that I am more likely to tell people the things we did wrong rather than the things we do right (How many Brits know about the Singapore pull-out in WW2? How many Americans realise how the UK treated the Ghurka despite what they've done for us?)

      The UK isn't "free" (because I don't think there can be such a thing) but we are certainly "freer" than a lot of other places and yet I still point out all the stupid restrictions we have at every opportunity because I want my country to be *better*. It seems to me that a lot of the Americans I meet think their country is already "the best" and "free" and so they don't strive to better their country and its image in other countries. Everybody should just love them because they are the best (and if you watch the movie Love Actually, you'll see a very contrived but incredibly accurate depiction of how the US treats the UK politically and what our response SHOULD be).

      It's like the difference between "We did what we thought was best" and "We should never have done that". Both statements may even refer to the same incident, but one attitude is superior, the other a lesson to learn from, and either tells you a hell of a lot about the people who say them.

  5. Re:Passenger can opt out... by Shimbo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hopefully this means they will not be allowed onto the plane.

    No.

    'In addition, passengers are given the right to opt out from a control with scanners and be subject to an alternative method of screening.'

  6. Re:Passenger can opt out... by GauteL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I do agree that we've taken it too far with airport security. Most of the regulations are utterly pointless and often ignored. As an example, think of the clear plastic bags to store your toiletries in. It isn't enough to just leave your toothpaste visible on top of your suitcase, it has to be visible INSIDE a clear plastic bag.

    Having got used to this nonsense in the UK, I once went through security at a central European airport when heading back to Heathrow. Having lost my plastic bag on my trip, I asked the security guard if they had any plastic bags I could use. He pointed to his colleague and told me to ask him. This colleague was placed AFTER the security scanners. This airport had the exact same Airport regulation rules as in the UK, and all the security posters told me to use the bags, but they were obviously less anal about it. I just smiled, thanked the guy and didn't bother.

  7. Re:Passenger can opt out... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Terrorism is a way of warfare through fear. The US has already lost this war (TSA, PATRIOT and the general reduction in civil rights). The EU just makes sure we don't lose it as well.
    Correct me if and where I am wrong, for this is not my field of study.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  8. common sense by apcullen · · Score: 2

    Is it me, or do these limitations just seem like basic, common sense?

  9. Re:Britain's violent crime record is worse than an by Xest · · Score: 3, Informative

    For some arbitrary definition of violent crime yes. We have a lower murder rate, lower levels of rape and so forth however which is arguably what matters more in terms of violent crime. I'd much rather put up with a slightly higher chance of being punched at the pub on a Friday night by a drunk if it means a drastically lower chance of just outright being shot dead next time I do my weekly shopping on a Saturday afternoon. Of course, avoiding both would be nice and I can't say either have affected me yet, but it illustrates the point.

    I covered debt to GDP elsewhere, it's meaningless by itself, and the riots? are you kidding me? Britain has one set of riots over a few days for the first time in god knows how many decades and that's something that stands out? Countries like Spain, Greece, France and so forth have riots of that scale on a seemingly annual basis. France for example:

    2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413964.stm

    2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_French_riots

    2010: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322441/France-riots-Demonstrations-pension-reforms-continue-ninth-day.html

    Yeah, I don't think Britain's riot situation is too much to worry about right now to be honest, if Britain can be criticised for having some kind of problem, it's sure as hell not riots.

    Britain has a lot of faults, but fundamentally my point was simply that compared to other nations, there's certainly not any more, and in many cases an awful lot less to worry about here. Pulling random faults out the hat proves what exactly? That Britain is a somehow worse country in general than many others? No, it doesn't.

  10. Re:OK, X-Rays are banned by fish+waffle · · Score: 2
    A better question is to ask what evidence is there that it is surely safe? Let's consider those facts with the opposing bias:
    1. - Frequencies used in security applications have a water penetration depth of on average 0.3mm. While this should result in damage mainly to surface layers of skin, the damage caused by further penetration when individual and localized exposure exceeds the average, or from repeated and long-term exposure is unknown.
    2. - A purely mathematical model suggests that photon energies involved have a potential to break bonds in the localized sites of the DNA helix which may interfere with RNA transcription. No practical experiments have been done to show this is safe or desirable.
    3. - The probability of these photon interactions is non-0 and represents a risk that is likely small, but nevertheless uncertain.
    4. - While your body is exposed to orders of magnitude more radiation cosmic and terrestrial sources daily, there is no rational necessity to add anything to that exposure merely to satisfy demonstrably ineffective security theater.