I think I'm gonna give myself a hernea if I continue in these threads - having gotten out of the outright stupidity that is another discussion on this matter on CNN.
But I will post some convenient talking points that come up in this discussion, and my opinions. [OPINIONS] These are not quotes, but just paraphrased arguments I hear all the time.
"But it only takes [insert time here]"
Irrelevant, time has nothing to do with this.
"But the airlines have the right to do whatever they need to..."
"But when you bought your ticket, you agreed to..."
First off, to anybody who feels the need to repeat points like this, how can I take you seriously when you keep arguing things that outright ignore the clarified, and established-again-and-again point that the TSA is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY and has nothing to do with the airlines themselves? Second, when I bought a ticket, I never saw one thing about airport security [hint hint, govt. agency works there], and even so, they'd have to obey the law.
"But what are your alternatives?"
IMO, some use this to discount the complaints or issues - and strictly as a counter-point, a red herring since the issues with the pat down exist, regardless of whether one has a fix for them or not. No matter how much you repeat them, this does not discount, or negate the existence of issues with a specific system at all.
"[inser some argument about making security laxer, etc]"
We only had these measures in for what, 2 years? That leaves 80 or more years, even 8 years after 9-11, where we didn't have them, and in the U.S the most serious of them was 9-11, but that's it. Removing these patdowns, the body scanners, will not make flying any more perilous, especially with alternatives in place. And guess what? They - the scanners specifically - have a flaws - the current ones so far, anyways. Things in body cavities [rectal, oral, etc] don't get picked up, nor do things in fat folds necessarily.
"So you support racial profiling?"
Strawman - that was never argued. Alternatives could be, for example, bomb sniffing dogs, making sure the agents are properly trained, they and any non-passenger are properly screened... logically implemented behavior profiling by properly trained people.
Just because race is a means of profiling doesn't mean that all profiling is racial - there is, for example, as I mentioned before, behavioral profiling, which IS a key component in Israeli security if I remember correctly.
"I have nothing to hide."
- Humans desire privacy
- Privacy is exercised consciously and subconsciously all the time
- Privacy is a form of concealment
- You are human
in the absolute sense of the term, since I am responding to a statement made with an absolute, you can not have "Nothing" to hide - and "hiding" things is not bad inherently - that's the whole concept of, *derp*, PRIVACY *facepalm*
"But who cares if they see you naked?"
I DO you putz - because I control who sees me naked, and there has never ben enough grounds yet, evidence, to me, to show that the administrative search right at the airport extends THAT FAR to begin with.
"But the TSA is not breaking the law"
Says who? It's still trundling through the legal system - for the now, the only reason the scanners are still legal are because of the patdown alternatives, but the more legal issues that sprout up over the pat downs, the more both aspects will be scrutinized.
If this were a private citizen, or a private company, I'm sure they'd be arrested - listened to people talk on Hannity about this last year or so - COPS came on the phonelines and said they'd be FIRED if not ARRESTED or INVESTIGATED for doing what the TSA gets away with.
"But the scanners can not save or store the images in any way whatsoever"
[inserts long winded, detailed, and verifiable explanation about how this is impossible based on computer system architecture theory and practice, followed by a conundrum of deleting evidence, and then needing it if something happened because they missed something]
"But the images are not detailed"
Usually, not always, it seems like the ones arguing this base their opinion based on images the DHS, TSA release, which look like the brightness / contrast have been meddled with. Find me some unmodified, unaltered, full resolution images, then we'll se WHICH side is right - the side saying they're detailed, or the one that isn't - I mean, logically, they;d have to have some degree of precision the images we DO see don't show, right?