Liberal BS

[strandinthewind]

This is why I think many people do not take the far left too seriously. I think that while the 2% that objected may have done so on principle, I submit they would run through the entire airport naked to get off of a plane that was hijacked
_______________________________________________________

Airport X-ray sees through clothes

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A new X-ray machine at London's Heathrow airport, which sees through passengers' clothes, has been attacked by civil liberties campaigners as a "voyeur's charter."

The machine uses low-level radiation to see through clothing, producing an anatomically detailed black and white image of the body underneath.

Capable of detecting solid objects concealed under clothing, it started a four month trial in October.

Randomly picked passengers are asked if they will volunteer to be scanned by the machine.

"I stood in front of the screen and they took three pictures in different positions," said passenger Pernille Nielsen.

"I don't mind if the pictures are a little more personal as long as I'm safe in air -- that's what matters," she told Reuters.

Another passenger, Maria Love, said: "It's all about being safe, and I really have no problem with it."

A spokeswoman for BAA Heathrow said 98 percent of participants gave positive feedback.

But British civil rights group Liberty called the X-ray images unjustified and intrusive.

"We obviously do not object to taking security measures, but I remain totally unconvinced that it is necessary," a spokesman said.

To justify the intrusion, the airport should show current detectors are inadequate, he added.

"It's an obvious invasion of people's privacy -- it's a voyeur's charter."

The American Transport Security Administration, which has considered using the machines at U.S. airports, echoed Liberty's concerns.

"There are a number of privacy issues that need to be addressed before we would do field tests," a spokeswoman said.

Scanners currently looking for concealed weapons or explosives on passengers have shown limitations in the past.

Traditional X-ray machines used to scan baggage have often struggled to identify plastic explosives, accidentally sounding alarms when detecting chocolate, cheese and peanut butter because of their similar density to the explosive Semtex.

Heathrow, which for security reasons declined to say how the new X-ray machine improves on current scanners, denies the machines could cause embarrassment.

"It's a very low dose X-ray, the images are not stored, it's same sex operated and the operator that sees the image will not see the person," said the airport spokeswoman.

"There will not be a situation that could cause embarrassment," she added.

Heathrow is one of the world's busiest airports, handling around 64 million passengers a year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/11/09...eut/index.html

[amber]

Can it detect drugs in body orifices? From what i read, no. It seems a bit invasive, and a bit radiative, but not that big a deal. solid objects under clothes? Might be good. According to this case i read last year about airport searching...you can't frisk people unless you suspect something. course, this case took place before bush, and even then the "probable cause" requirements were pretty loose...

[chiliD]

Originally Posted by amber

...and even then the "probable cause" requirements were pretty loose...

"Probable cause" is going to disappear altogether very soon...mark my words.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by chiliD

"Probable cause" is going to disappear altogether very soon...mark my words.

I agree with that in spirit. But, for years you the need for security at airports has outweighed almost all rights, including probable cause. I generally tend to agree with this (although there are limits ) but I think in this case, this is not unreasonable. I mean yes they can see you sort of naked, but most screeners see hundreds of people a day and in the larger airports - thousands. So, I think any intrusion is insignificant. Plus, you do not have to fly if you do not like it

But and again, the Fourth Amend. protections have been dwindeling for years.

[gldstwmn]

Can I recommend that you change the title of the thread as you state an article from CNN however thread title is your opinion? This is not an editorial.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

This is why I think many people do not take the far left too seriously. I think that while the 2% that objected may have done so on principle, I submit they would run through the entire airport naked to get off of a plane that was hijacked

This is more of a libertarian-type of BS, Jason, not "liberals."

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

This is more of a libertarian-type of BS, Jason, not "liberals."

Touche' Touche'

I was approaching it from the point of view that the ACLU will take the case. But, you are right in the sense that llibertarians in general probably care more about this

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Touche' Touche'

I was approaching it from the point of view that the ACLU will take the case. But, you are right in the sense that llibertarians in general probably care more about this

The ACLU took Limpball's case.

I give them my money whenever I can, but I was a bit hesitant to send another check after that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Can I recommend that you change the title of the thread as you state an article from CNN however thread title is your opinion? This is not an editorial.

Well, no. It is my opinon on the incident noted in this article. But, thanks for the suggestion

Again, I can see the ACLU, which I think is safe to call a liberal organization - esp. in today's world screaming about this. Oops - it already has (emphasis supplied)
_________________________________________________________

There are some security measures that are extremely intrusive and should only be used when there is good cause to suspect that an individual is a security risk. Low-dose X-ray machines such as - Body Search - are in use in some airports by the Customs Service to search for drugs and other contraband. The ACLU is concerned that these searches have been conducted without good cause and based on profiles that are racially discriminatory. In addition, these machines are capable of projecting an image of a passenger’s naked body. We oppose using this as part of a routine screening procedure. Passengers expect privacy underneath their clothing and should not be required to display highly personal details of their bodies such as evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances, penile implants, catheter tubes and the size of their breasts or genitals as a pre-requisite to boarding a plane. However, such technology may be used in place of an intrusive search, such as a body cavity search, when there is probable cause sufficient to support such a search.
_________________________________________________________

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=13508&c=206

I mean their statement "Passengers expect privacy underneath their clothing" in an airport is just not true in that courts have ruled any expectation of privacy is greatly reduced for air passengers and any expectation of privacy can fairly easily be outweighed by security measures.

Again, I cannot believe this is even an issue because as we know a plane in the wrong hands can kills thousands. I cannot see how that does not outweigh any momentary nakedness. And - these screeners will see hundreds if not thousands of people for an instant and they are looking for weapons, not genetalia and if they ever really noticed with interest the nudity clearly they after awhile will not really care about the nudity - as said evidenced by Stevie's "if you walk down the street naked everyday, eventually people will stop looking" But, I am sure this will be an issue. But it will be in vain because I think any legal contest of this will lose based on those reasons.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

The ACLU took Limpball's case.

I give them my money whenever I can, but I was a bit hesitant to send another check after that.

I will give it up for the ACLU and I like them. They are not hyppocrites. They stick by their guns ( ) no matter how repugnant the client or case they may make as a friend of the court or interested party. That takes sand - and they have it in spades.

As for Rush, he is a rank hypocrite for taking their help. But, I think we knew that already

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I will give it up for the ACLU and I like them. They are not hyppocrites. They stick by their guns ( ) no matter how repugnant the client or case they may make as a friend of the court or interested party. That takes sand - and they have it in spades.

As for Rush, he is a rank hypocrite for taking their help. But, I think we knew that already

I completely agree. Though, I must admit, I am a bit saddened that they represent NAMBLA. I mean, c'mon.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I completely agree. Though, I must admit, I am a bit saddened that they represent NAMBLA. I mean, c'mon.

I know. I am shocked by that as well. I mean consenting adults can roll around naked in ketchup screaming "I'm a french fry" for all I care. But, a child under 18 with a 45 year old man is quite another. I do not understand where the ACLU and others suppose that right exists. But, they do and that is a bad thing. Having said that, the rest of the ACLU's work is pretty good IMO even if some of it is in the abstract and hard to apply to reality a la the right to burn a cross in protest to the end of slavery I agree with the right, but that is a tough one

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

I completely agree. Though, I must admit, I am a bit saddened that they represent NAMBLA. I mean, c'mon.

Yeah, i was just gonna ask you guys what you thought of that...

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know. I am shocked by that as well. I mean consenting adults can roll around naked in ketchup screaming "I'm a french fry" for all I care. But, a child under 18 with a 45 year old man is quite another. I do not understand where the ACLU and others suppose that right exists. But, they do and that is a bad thing. Having said that, the rest of the ACLU's work is pretty good IMO even if some of it is in the abstract and hard to apply to reality a la the right to burn a cross in protest to the end of slavery I agree with the right, but that is a tough one

Gross, dude. That "organization" is beyond disturbing. Since when is man/boy "love" a civil liberty ?

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know. I am shocked by that as well. I mean consenting adults can roll around naked in ketchup screaming "I'm a french fry" for all I care. :

Thanks for the great suggestion! Finally, a way to really maximize on my love of, and near worship for, chips and fries...