Since there will undoubtedly be children scanned by these machines, the job could be an attractive profession for child molesters. On the bright side perhaps the perverts in the clergy will be resigning en masse for new careers with the TSA.

Also remember that that the authorities who lied about the quality of the images are the same ones claiming the images will not be stored. If history is any guide, these images will end up on the Internet. Welcome to the future where your fans can type "Amy Alkon naked TSA" into Google and find out what Gregg sees in you.

I feel sorry for the TSA people manning the scanners. There are far more people resembling water buffalo then attractive people in this country.

The word is chute, not shoot. You see rude people; I see bad grammar.

I blame repeated beatings by the nuns in elementary school and ask for mercy. I'm aware it's not nice to pick on you in your blog, but it just grates... Sorry.

It's this weird paranoia that is paralyzing America. The people scanning for the TSA are not perverts, they are doing their job. We get so hung up on small details of our privacy the intelligent debate gets drowned out.

I've read time and time again from people who know or have experienced Israeli security -- don't look for the objects, look for the terrorists.

Some of the TSA folks that I’ve had contact with may not have been perverts, but could have qualified as preverts (aspiring perverts). Others are just power hungry or want to feel you up.

Eric,
Small details of our privacy???? You are joking right? Our privacy is MOST important. . . we are free right? hmm.

What people are forgetting in their quest for "real" un-photoshopped scanner images is that scanners can be made as precise as the manufacturers & users want them to be. The best submillimeter medical scanners today have a resolution of just 20 micrometers. So if you're wondering "can a TSA guy sitting behind a fancy scanner pick out every hair on my pussy & every fold in my labia?", the answer is, you betcha!

Enjoy your security theater!

The word is chute, not shoot. You see rude people; I see bad grammar.

I blame repeated beatings by the nuns in elementary school and ask for mercy. I'm aware it's not nice to pick on you in your blog, but it just grates... Sorry.

It just greats.

Actually, it's not "bad grammar" or grammar at all. My brain does cool tricks, and this is one of the side-effects -- sometimes swapping a like-sounding word for what it should be. It's very helpful in creating punny headlines. Not so helpful when you're rushing to post a blog item so you can get back to your regularly scheduled deadline day moaning, weeping, and self-flagellation.

PS I never took grammar. I couldn't tell you what the direct object of a sentence is, but I could probably guess. (Is there such a thing?) I read piles of books, and seem to have an innate knowledge of grammar and spelling, and then I have blog commenters and editors to see I don't make an assss out of myself when I go to press.

> We get so hung up on small details
> of our privacy

I dunno, for some of us the details aren't that small.

(Har!)

no, seriously folks, the right to wear clothes is, like, one of hte first rights of privacy that every child learns. There's nothing parnoid about not wanting strangers to see you naked in such a mundane context; These guys aren't neurosurgeons or oncologists whose heads are cycling through studies of biochemistry and blood chemistry as they consider the shape of your body. They're high school graduates [or not] who are thinking about that bag of Fritos waiting for them in the lunch room. I think a 'really intelligent debate' would start from there, not from trying to decide how much government intrusion people can be compelled to deal with before they start squawking. (Maybe.)

I (ahem) had a typical but not-notably-bad experience at an airport last week. I mean, those TSA people are minimum-wage zombies, only they're probably making more than minimum wage. I wouldn't want them looking at the outside of my CAR, let alone my body underneath my clothes.

>> Small details of privacy...

Look, if it gets me through the security line along with 2,000 other travelers, take the damn x-ray. If there is a police check-point Saturday nights where they are screening for drunk drivers, I don't have a problem with that either. Ask me a couple questions and I'll be on my way. If it gets 20 or 30 drunks off the road that weekend, it's a small price to pay.

No fair winning the argument... I SAID "maybe"!

Besides, I still hate the TSA. There shouldn't BE a line....

Well, after Iposted that, I read this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/What-Airport-Security-Costs-usnews-2591317483.html?x=0

and that was one of the less worrisome articles I have read this morning!

The biggest filthy, wretched, stinking lie in that article:

> But these costs have to be measured against
> the massive damage that would be done to
> the economy if another terrorist attack
> were to occur.

No they don't! No they don't!

Small matters first: This is not about protecting "the economy." This is about protecting human beings. American human beings and their guests, especially... The most decent kind of human beings you'll ever know. The fact that their lives and deaths have economic implications is not the point.

And the big matter: The costs of TSA tomfoolery (and I don't think the article gives anywhere near enough respect to the loses of comfort, dignity, and self-responsibility) can be measured against the tragedy of an attack only if the tomfoolery would have prevented it.

And I have no faith. Zero. None. This is bullshit.

I believe that the people who see your body scan are not the same ones who see you in person, so pedophiles would be limited. That's how they're protecting privacy - by not having those who see you in person see the scan itself. It's "headless".

We're up against an enemy that will use every means possible, so I say don't be prudish. No American HAS to travel by air - it wasn't guaranteed by the constitution - but, if you must, then this is what you agree to, and I don't think it's that awful.

Two years ago, I was physically searched because I bought a flt to DC the night before (spur of the moment excursion), and my name is "Tanya", which maybe sounds like a terrorist name (is there a middle eastern version?). So, I let the lady pull me aside in a glass booth and feel me up, and went on my way, hoping they were just as diligent with everyone else on my flt. I didn't care that she felt my crotch. Frankly, it would've been much nicer with a scanner.

TSA must try to stay one step ahead of these terrorists, and, so far, they have - from liquids to, now, panties. Since 9/11, they have successfully prevented air attacks. We should be grateful not critical.

If there is a police check-point Saturday nights where they are screening for drunk drivers, I don't have a problem with that either. Ask me a couple questions and I'll be on my way. If it gets 20 or 30 drunks off the road that weekend, it's a small price to pay

Actually, it's pretty much the highest price there is. You are forcing me to endure questioning that presumes I'm engaged in criminal activity with no evidence that I am to trigger such questioning.

Put another way, checkpoints are yet another way that I am inconvenienced to keep the shallow end of the gene pool well stocked.

TSA must try to stay one step ahead of these terrorists, and, so far, they have - from liquids to, now, panties. Since 9/11, they have successfully prevented air attacks. We should be grateful not critical.

That is precisely 180 degrees from reality. TSA has been one step BEHIND the terrorists, only defending against attack vectors that were discovered and/or foiled by other means.

I was pulled aside for additional inspection in Sweden for commenting in line that we'd been inspected once already, and how many times did we need to do this anyhow (we went through a full screening at the entrance to the terminal, and once more at the gate - apparently this second one was for US bound flights only).

Apparently the answer is "three" if you look Italian and have a big mouth, but "two" if you're a good little sheep.

The TSA is not now nor has it ever been about security. It is about teaching Americans to forfeit any pretense of privacy or dignity without complaint in the name of satisfying unaccountable bureaucrats and their low-level functionaries and agents.

"Actually, it's pretty much the highest price there is. You are forcing me to endure questioning that presumes I'm engaged in criminal activity with no evidence that I am to trigger such questioning."

That's not "the highest price there is", Brian. The "highest price" is if one of those drunks plows into you or your family.

Here in FL, the checkpoints are even advertised in the local paper in advance. If you still drive through them drunk, you are too stupid to be on the road.

Our forefathers didn't anticipate drunk driving, any more than terrorism, but I doubt they would've had a problem with advance warning if the end game was to keep the rest of the citizens safe. You should know you are at risk for search and seizure if you fly or if you drive. Anyone who wishes to behave illegally should stay at home - in Yemen.

I still use slide film (dinosaur that I am) and that scanner pic being 'reversed' made my laugh yesterday. I suppose with the near demise of reversal film it's inevitable. People just don't know how it works.

First of all thank you for linking to my blog post which was the first place on the Internet to expose the photo as a hoax. Of course this is still a very serious invasion of privacy issue. In fact a new article today says this:

A privacy group says the Transportation Security Administration is misleading the public with claims that full-body scanners at airports cannot store or send their graphic images.

The TSA specified in 2008 documents that the machines must have image storage and sending abilities, the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said.

[Full Story HERE]

I pulled security police duty when I was in the USAF. By the end of an 8 or 12 hour shift looking at B&W shots on line badges (restricted area badges) and comparing them to faces it was a blur.

They would run security tests where they dressed a guy as a full colonel (eagle insignia) and put the picture of the eagle on the badge. They would get through.

My point being is that the human mind gets numb at some point to "how hot is this person."

I have no problem with the backscatter as long as they get reasonable with the rest of the crap. But theater on top of theater just pisses me off.

That's not "the highest price there is", Brian. The "highest price" is if one of those drunks plows into you or your family.

Not as such. If they were serious about stopping drunk driving, then the penalty would not be license suspension and fines. It would be hard time in medium security.

If these checkpoints stop one or two accidents at the cost of stopping hundreds of innocents, then they are too expensive. The violation of liberty is unacceptable.

Here in FL, the checkpoints are even advertised in the local paper in advance. If you still drive through them drunk, you are too stupid to be on the road.

Here in CT, they don't tell you where they are going to be, and if you turn down a side street they chase you down. And they use them for seatbelts and registration/emissions compliance checking.

UN ACCEPTABLE.

Our forefathers didn't anticipate drunk driving, any more than terrorism, but I doubt they would've had a problem with advance warning if the end game was to keep the rest of the citizens safe.

They didn't expect that the government's job would ever mutate into protecting the individual. Our nation was formed to protect the rights of the individual. Everything else was left up to that individual.

You should know you are at risk for search and seizure if you fly or if you drive.

Yeah, somehow the fourth amendment gets suspended the instant you get into a car. Pardon me if I find that to be an bridge too far.

I have no problem with the backscatter as long as they get reasonable with the rest of the crap. But theater on top of theater just pisses me off.

However there is no evidence to suggest that they will get reasonable with any of it. Which means that this is just more good money after bad.

"They didn't expect that the government's job would ever mutate into protecting the individual. Our nation was formed to protect the rights of the individual. Everything else was left up to that individual."

Yes, and that individual can decide whether or not to fly, which wasn't even invented when this country was founded. The right to privacy did not include such things as flying. And when we have madmen hijacking and flying planes into buildings to "kill the infidels," I think any reasonable individual would either refuse to fly or expect their government to do everything possible to protect them while flying. It's an obvious risk, but not a "right." We protect flying for the sake of our economy, not because it is a guaranteed priviledge.

I think any reasonable individual would either refuse to fly or expect their government to do everything possible to protect them while flying.

Well, it's not reasonable to expect them to strip-search every person that gets on the plane when the problem is muslims.

If they were interested in doing everything possible, they'd strip search every muslim that tried to board and leave the rest of us alone.

Since they aren't doing that, and in fact are going out of their way to show that they won't single muslims out for extra screening, then the whole thing is a farce.

I don't fly, yet my money is being used to do things that we know for an absolute fact do nothing to enhance safety or security. I want my fucking money back.

I'm absolutely with you on searching Muslims. To hell with "racial profiling".

Yet, I also know from the drug days of FL (mid 80s), that when a group knows they'll be singled out they'll plant the least likely to be presumed guilty with the goods (in their case, it was women, often pregnant women). So, it's all too easy for Muslims to recruit sympathetic waspy looking individuals to do these deeds instead. Therefore, unfortunately, we must treat every flying passenger as a potential terrorist.

But, getting back to the point, none of us have to fly. It's a convenience, not a right. Of course, it would bring American business to a standstill if we couldn't fly, but it still isn't a right.

"But getting back to the point, none of us have to fly. It's a convenience, not a right. Of course, it would bring American business to a standstill if we couldn't fly, but it still isn't a right."

You're missing the point, lovelysoul. Flying itself is not a right. Taking a sailing ship across the ocean wasn't a right 300 years ago, either. But life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness (and prosperity) are inalienable rights. That is why the pirates of the Caribbean had to be wiped out in the l8th/19th centuries. As long as the likes of Blackbeard roamed the seas at will, they could inflict such damage to the economies of the Americas & Europe by crippling international trade that they effectively robbed millions of people, even some entire countries, of their inalienable rights. Taking a sailing ship across the Atlantic was more of a luxury for ordinary people back then than taking a 747 is for people today. But unimpeded maritime trade was so absolutely vital to the economy of every civilized country that they could not function without it. Grounding air travel today is not an option. When something is vital for the very existence of an economy, then it's not a luxury anymore.

The West did not defeat piracy back then by fucking around with catch-&-release tactics like we're using on Somali pirates today, or by indulging in security theater to make their citizens "feel" safer. They got serious. All pirates were declared enemies of mankind, to be slaughtered on sight by any means necessary. It worked. It's the only solution that could work, then or now.

Just a note from way back in 1791:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Or did they mean "if you don't let us peek at your genitals the British will take over and give you free dental care"?

This is so sickening - that Americans would bend over for the illusion of safety.

There's no such thing. If you don't believe me, believe Helen Keller. Blind, deaf, mute, she could tell that safety doesn't exist. You're fooling yourself, especially in believing professional liars that this time, this time, they have you best interest at heart.

That's crap, and as an adult, you should know that.

But you'll even suppress professional opinion like Patrick Smith's with your own desperate wishing for everything to be OK - if you just {bend over this one last time}.

Will you wear handcuffs on the plane, Eric? If everybody else does? It's for your own safety...

"But getting back to the point, none of us have to fly. It's a convenience, not a right. Of course, it would bring American business to a standstill if we couldn't fly, but it still isn't a right."

That is an extraordinarily silly statement. No, they didn't have airplanes, they had horses and ships. It was your free right to ride your horse or get on a ship. Today we drive cars and fly. Same idea, different technology.

If you actually read the Constitution, you will see that any power it does not specifically grant to the federal government is left with the States or with the individuals. The federal government has the right to run customs at the national border. It has no authority to be involved in domestic flights (or education, or indeed in dozens of other areas where it is now active).

Security on domestic flights should be left to the airlines. They don't want their planes to be blown up either. However, they have an interest in handling security in a customer-friendly and cost-effective way.

Yeah, that's what we need - to be "customer -friendly" to terrorists.

I hate the loss of privacy, just as much as I hate the loss of my property rights to protect some fucking snail or rat. But that's the way it's gone. We're not in 1791 anymore.

Our freedoms have pretty much been trampled already. THIS freedom - of having my genitals kept "private" so that other passengers can plant bombs in their panties is one I'll gladly give up...for life, liberty, and pusuit of happiness...which, for me, includes safe air travel.

We were already subject to search. They already scan our luggage and put us through metal detectors. Was anybody crying about their right to bear arms being violated?

This has already saved countless lives. They found out terrorists were going to detonate bombs in water bottles, so they stopped allowing liquids. They learned of shoe bombers and now panty bombers. Soon, terrorists will probably figure out how to ingest an explosive, and then, we'll have X-ray scanners looking into our stomachs.

It sucks, but each time, we make it harder for them, we're defeating their plans and keeping people alive.

Actually, it's not "bad grammar" or grammar at all. My brain does cool tricks, and this is one of the side-effects -- sometimes swapping a like-sounding word for what it should be. It's very helpful in creating punny headlines. Not so helpful when you're rushing to post a blog item so you can get back to your regularly scheduled deadline day moaning, weeping, and self-flagellation.

PS I never took grammar. I couldn't tell you what the direct object of a sentence is, but I could probably guess. (Is there such a thing?) I read piles of books, and seem to have an innate knowledge of grammar and spelling, and then I have blog commenters and editors to see I don't make an assss out of myself when I go to press.

Finally, a person with with the same writing/thinking tendecis (SP!!)as I. I couldn't remember grammar rules, and depended on what sounded "right". I heard correct grammar at home, and read constantly. Iokaysionaly I maid mistacks.

"It sucks, but each time, we make it harder for them, we're defeating their plans and keeping people alive."

Actually, no. By accepting restrictions like this, you hand the terrorists victory.

Terrorists live in totalitarian societies. As you give up your rights and freedoms, you help turn our society into the same kind of totalitarian police state that they live in.

If they can destroy the very things that make our society different from (and better than) theirs, they win.

I doubt the terrorists have to go to a code hearing for cutting down a tree in their backyard...or get a permit to paint their house...or a thousand other restriction WE have to deal with. Wake up. This is not a totally free society. WE made it different...every time we said "there ought to be a law against that!"
The biggest terrorists are your neighbors. But at least they don't usually blow you up.

As Amy mentioned, this pic is a PS-job. It's apparently based off a piece of stock art located here - http://bit.ly/72TkfC

I don't think Drudge neccessarily intended it to be fraudulent as much as just illustrative of what "might be", but not marking the photo as a mock-up was certainly a bad play.

A lot of people, including Anthony Cumia of XM Radio's "Opie and Anthony" show got fooled by this. And alas, the response to a photo like this always gets less play than the original, so I'll lay odds we'll see it presented as "proof" for quite a long time.

It doesn't diminish the fact that these scanner are rather intrusive and there's a LOT (imagine bigger font there) of potential issues with its use, but based on recent polls I've seen, a good number of people don't think it's all that big a deal.

Of course, a lot of people believe lots of crap, but that is another argument entirely.

"WE made it different...every time we said "there ought to be a law against that!"

I suppose that is the fundamental point here, and I'll pass on participating in that collective "we". I am very much a fan of small government, and I have always consistently voted that way.

Any society needs laws and regulations, but we need a whole lot fewer than we have. I would rather have a one-in-a-million risk of terrorism when getting on a plane than the complete certainty of a time-consuming and miserable trip. This assumes that the TSA security restrictions actually accomplish anything, which is very much open to question.

I'm glad you vote the way you do, but I don't share your belief that it's a "one in a million risk of terrorism" now. If we don't take every measure possible to combat terrorism, then planes will routinely blow up. No one will want to fly, which will ruin our economy (or ruin it more).

Besides, we already opened this door years ago. Once we gave them the right to search us for weapons (which, I assume, was a result of hijackings), then we gave up that freedom. Government never gives your freedoms back. They tweak them, and reconfigure them, and this is all that's happening here. I really don't see a big difference between a metal detector, a pat-down, or a body scan. It's all a search.

If we don't take every measure possible to combat terrorism, then planes will routinely blow up. No one will want to fly, which will ruin our economy (or ruin it more).

No, if one plane blows up, the American people will demand an end to political correctness and screen everyone who has a stamp from a majority-muslim country in their passport. They'll demand that muslims be screened harshly and/or denied flights.

And they'll demand that instead of pussyfooting around with nation-building that we start evaporating islam's holy landmarks.

I really don't see a big difference between a metal detector, a pat-down, or a body scan. It's all a search.

And I'm against all of it. Just let me get on the fucking plane. I'd like to see the evidence that lives have been saved by all this bullshit. Somehow, I suspect it's the same as the numerous checkpoints we must now endure: "Imagine how much worse it would be if we didn't harass you!"

"If we don't take every measure possible to combat terrorism, then planes will routinely blow up."

Congratulations. You are now the citizen Big Brother wanted to create.

A lot of people, including Anthony Cumia of XM Radio's "Opie and Anthony" show got fooled by this.
Posted by: Vinnie Bartilucci at January 12, 2010 6:41 AM

~~~

Nothing to add, but, I love them!

Carry on.

getting back to the point...

You couldn't.

none of us have to fly.

None of us have to speak, either.

It's a convenience, not a right.

Incorrect.

If you'd ever bother to read the Constitution instead of wiping with it after you pop a squat you'd never say such facile things.

That which was not explicitly given to the government -- and there's damned little that was -- is reserved for the states or for the people.

This includes driving, flying, and privacy. The Constitution does not explicitly grant the feds the authority to interfere with driving -- which in 1789 was relegated to horses and wagons -- nor flying, which was not conceived of at all. Nor does the Constitution grant the feds the authority to nitpick and badger for the sake of "safety" or "health" or any other cause ... in fact the 4thAM pretty much says they can't without probable cause. Now, if you think that any given driver has a probable cause to be stopped for drunk driving, then by all means, get a warrant. If you think an 80-y.o. granny from Des Moines is as "probable" a terrorist as a Jordanian national who's been to Somalia and Libya within the last two months ... a warrant is warranted.

Beyond that, Ms Police-statist, you got nothin'.

Oh ... and by the way, Ms Police-statist ...

The trained apes at TSA have zero victories in the war to combat airborn sabotage.

That's none; zip; zilch; nada; bupkus.

The trained apes are notoriously inept at even finding the test bombs and guns the security auditors attempt [and succeed] to get past them. Yet is amazing how full their bins are with dangerous baby food, harmful soda pop, weaponized manicure kits, and fatal toothpaste, shampoo and the entire spectrum of toiletries.

The trained apes are looking for things not people. And because they are looking for things they are required to operate inefficiently, and devote nearly uniform inspection of every person. Yet it is a fact -- not even quibbled by the bloated fucks at DHS -- that almost no one boarding an American-bound airplane is a danger.

Those who are a danger are, to exaggerate greatly, 0.000001% of airline passengers. And it's not even a real secret what demographic they belong to. They belong to the 1.5% of the flying public which fits certain criteria.

DHS concedes that.

It's amazing how everyone knows what we should be doing, yet no one has the 'jones to do it. And because we don't, we violate the Constitution a billion times a year in airports, confiscate harmless household goods from harmless dweebs trying to get from Point A to Point B, and don't have the resources left to give the twice-over to foreign nationals without luggage and cash-bought tickets.

"If you'd ever bother to read the Constitution instead of wiping with it after you pop a squat you'd never say such facile things."

As a property owner in FL, I have The Dept of Natural Resources, The Department of Environmental Protection, and (my favorite) The Dept of Community Affairs up my ass all the time. If I snip an indigenous plant or knock over a woodrat habitat, I'm fined up the wazoo.

Oh, and I'm not allowed to build anything on my commerically-zoned property because of a "building moratoriam" that has lasted over 15 years. Essentially, the government has SEIZED my property without compensation.

So, don't talk to me about the constitution. I know it better than you from all the times I've sued over this. You can read it all you like, but you're deluding yourself if you don't realize we already ARE in a police state.

When I first moved to an environmentally-sensitive area, I still believed this country honored the constitution. But, after seeing people's properties seized by the government through regulation, I no longer have such delusions.

If the government can abuse my rights to protect a stupid RAT, then they might as well protect people too.

The terrorists are deterred by these measures, even if every TSA employee doesn't catch every threat. The deterrent of being screened has kept them unable to blow up a plane since 9/11, and that has certainly saved lives.

And they're not stupid. If we stop searching anyone but middle-easterners, they'll simply recruit people of different ethnicities.

don't talk to me about the constitution.

Admitting you don't know squat about it?

Wise move.

The terrorists are deterred by these measures, even if every TSA employee doesn't catch every threat.

The TSA doesn't catch any threat. They are oh-fer-ever.

They nab baby wipes, and honey, and emory boards, and those little 3/4" key-fob knives that have 20 years of toes-jams embedded in the hinge.

Yay!

The deterrent of being screened has kept them unable to blow up a plane since 9/11, and that has certainly saved lives.

My horses leave me more intellectual things in the pasture than you just gave.

There is no deterrant in being screened ... because they aren't. Neither is anyone else.

We are perfuctorily shaken down; essentially hoisted by the ankles and whatever falls out they get to keep.

What has kept planes from being sabotaged are:
1] passengers [twice, actively]
2] cockpit door locks and random sky marshalls.

TSA -- and get this quick -- has done bupkus.

If we stop searching anyone but middle-easterners, they'll simply recruit people of different ethnicities.

The sad and pathetic part of this is that you believe it.

Apart from a handful of self-righteous poli-sci students wetting their panties about US "imperialism", the prospect of pan-islamist hooliganism being able to recruit "different ethnicities" is virtually nil.

And it's not the ethnicity at issue in the first place ... but you'd know that if you, like, knew how profiling worked.

But you don't. You're just like the rest of the brainless masses who criticize it because of what you heard from some advocacy group whose purpose is to get whiny neophytes to weep huge tears and have public hissy fits until we pretend everyone has been pooped out a human being mold in exactly the same form as everyone else.

We haven't. If you believe that a 75-y.o. retiree flying from StLose to Phoenix has as much "terrorist potential" as that Jordanian national whose passport has Yemen and Somalia stamped on it, then you're as much of an idiot as you seem.

You're the idiot, and one who appears to be obsessed with "poop". How many times do you need to reference defecating?

I think a lot of the non-profiling is stupid, and at first, I was against it. Yet, I'm unconvinced of your assertion that they'd be unable to recruit less threatening types. That's just your unsubstantiated belief. Ultimately, these terrorists will do what they have to do to attack us.

Plus, it's unrealistic to expect that we would be able to disallow ALL middle-eastern people from traveling. We could round them up and put them in camps, just like we did the Japanese, but trampling the rights of an entire ethnic group, out of fear - even reasonable fear - is untenable.

Cockpit doors will do no good if a passenger blows himself up, and passengers did not stop this latest threat. The bomb was simply detonated wrong or didn't go off. If it had worked properly, there would've been nothing passengers could do, as it would've blown a hole in the plane.

Anyway, why weren't you protesting this years ago? We've been searched and scanned for weapons at airports for decades now. It's a little late to whine "privacy rights". Is it just that they'll "see" your panties? Why is that such a big deal?

We have metal detectors at schools now. I just got a drug test kit for my 15 yr old sent home BY the school (funded by the state), conveniently, so I can test her for alcohol (the letter said, "these will be sent home 3 times per year to coincide with special events, like homecoming and prom"). We have cameras on every street corner and satellites that can zero in on your license plate, which anyone can view online.

What privacy are you really trying to protect? What privacy is even left?

How many times do you need to reference defecating?

Depends on you. You gonna stop taking a dump and calling it discourse?

I'm unconvinced of your assertion that they'd be unable to recruit less threatening types.

I didn't say they'd be "unable". I said it'd be virtually nil.

Do not freely redefine the language; you're already on thin academic ice.

these terrorists will do what they have to do to attack us.

You don't even know what you're afraid of. Threats can be quantified; they can be measured. If you don't believe so then you are claiming to live in the neolithic where thunder is caused by gods fighting each other.

Don't waste my time.

it's unrealistic to expect that we would be able to disallow ALL middle-eastern people from traveling.

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Profiling is not as you describe it; it doesn't require rounding anyone up, and it doesn't require interring them.

Listen, toots, if you really don't know what's going on then it'd be safer to your ego to simply shut the fuck up and listen to those who do.

trampling the rights of an entire ethnic group, out of fear - even reasonable fear - is untenable

Trampling the rights of EVERYbody is better?

Does it not count if EVERYone gets warrantlessly searched?

do you even listen to yourself?

Cockpit doors will do no good if a passenger blows himself up

There hasn't been enough explosive in anyone's shoes or anyone's jockeys to do more than make the airplane smell like sweaty sneakers or skidmarks.

Sorry.

Bringing down an airliner like that is a plot line out of 24.

why weren't you protesting this years ago?

How do you know I wasn't?

It's clear you're presumptuous, pretentious, and incapable of making an argument that doesn't come with a whole army of straw men.

Aren't you emabarrassed?

Is it just that they'll "see" your panties?

I've volunteered to get naked once already for the TSA weenies. And besides, I'm typically commando. They wanna see, I'll show 'em.

But we have rules in this country and they aren't following them.

Them following the rules isn't going to happen the more prissy little sycophants like you allow them to get away with creeping tyranny.

"But we have rules in this country and they aren't following them."

Yeah, duh. That's all I'm saying. You're so dense you're just now catching on this? We've got much bigger violations of our rights going on besides body scanning at the airport.

If you really care, go rail against something more worthwile. Much greater abuses of government power, like property seizure without just compensation, should raise your ire more than this petty scanner issue. But you're probably too stupid to be aware of them, so you fixate on the weenies at TSA looking at your weenie.

There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Only a couple million of those are ethnic Europeans who would be indistinguishable from the average Frenchman if they dressed right. Even with that enormous pool of over a billion Muslims to work with, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda & Hamas have only managed to find & field a few thousand suicide bombers in modern history. Finding Muslims who are actually willing to go through with such a thing is not easy, even for a master of the art like bin Laden. The 19 9/11 hijackers were by far the largest group of suicide jihadis ever assembled in one place by a terrorist organization. It took years to find & cultivate them (and none of them would have been able to board their planes if a reasonable screening program had been in place). Most suicide bombers attack individually or in pairs, sometimes in a group of 3 or 4.

If Al Qaeda had to limit their terrorist recruitment to Muslims who would not arouse any suspicions, their pool of candidates would shrink by a factor of about 250. That wouldn't solve the problem, but it would make a difference.

Here's the dream for some of you... searches completely without probable cause.

What people have to realise is that accepting a certain amount of risk is the price we pay for living in a free society.

You wanna go around with 'oh please Big Brother. I don't care what needs to be done, just protect me at all costs', then fine. But don't expect to live in a free society for long with that attitude.

Personally I would rather take my chances and live free than live in a bureaucratic tyranny.