Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin
This isn't a strip search, and it's not random, either.
Seeing you naked is not a "strip search" how?
It's under a pretty controlled situation: a precondition for boarding a flight.
Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Law enforcement shouldn't need to do it.
In the particular case if airport security here, it isn't law enforcement doing this.
Any other time, a Libertarian would be all gung-ho for private groups doing it.
The TSA IS a federally controled, federally run organization.
If it's not goverment law doing it, it should be a-okay to you.
No, it [being WBI] shouldn't be OK at all IMO.
Trying to pigeonhole me into a contradiction that doesn't exist, are we?
First you say it's gov't, then you say it's not. Which is it?
I've been fairly consistent - it is government, always has been post-911. Government is not mutually inclusive of law enforcement you know, in that you can be govt. without being law enforcement.
Is the government law enforcement behind it, or not?
Government is not mutually inclusive of law enforcement you know, in that you can be govt. without being law enforcement.
A certain set of documents [the bill of rights and the constitution] become that much more important in that case.
And you just said it's not any government law enforcement doing it, so which is it?
no, I said it wasn't LAW ENFORCEMENT doing it, but a government program that doesn't have the same legal authority as cops.
I have seen the images. They aren't even realistic images. They give a bloated, cartoonish pixelated image of your body.
Except the ones that they reveal to the public have been manipulated - are far from full resolution, pixalated, overexposed, etc.
We are not getting the real picture, and I refuse to support the idea that this cartoony image is real until I see it with my own eyes, full resolution, un-manipulated. They will probably claim that is SSI though, as usual. :roll:
andyou can always claim anything's not "good enough or altered." That's a very weasleworded phrase.
Except I have the intellectual honesty to not point and claim "good enough or altered" in the manor you fear, so lets not go into this with any undue presumption of each other ok?
Similiar in that you don't have privacy in public, and a private airport can allow either.
PHYSICAL privacy up to a point though - there is a difference between being watched on CCTV and being X-RAYED in the manner WBI functions.
And don't even get me started on their claim that "it can't store, save, or transmit images" - from a purely computer science perspective that is complete bull**** using the technology we have today - that they use - and how computers work.
That's a bit dramatic with the whole "irradiation thing." You make it seem as if you're being given some treatment. It's not hurting you.
There was a study recently where it was revealed that the TSA knew nothing about how much radiation was being released from these machines, and in fact many times more radiation was being released from these machines than they were admitting.
You are irradiated every day you walk outside. This isn't harming you.
And not releasing as much radiation as these machines more likely than not.
At most, it's a small inconvenience.
To you perhaps.
You are not being forced to use the service, so you always have a choice to not do so
Bull.
If you want to get places rapidly, you need to fly. By needing to get across vast masses of land quickly, and across OCEANS rapidly, you need to fly. By being in a field of work that required a lot of travel rapidly, you need to fly.
There is just no way around it. A luxury to most it may be, but that doesn't negate its vitality and necessity to others.
[less verbose way of putting it to me: Find me a way to take the bus to Australia if I ever wanted].
Even still, the TSA and their often invasive tactics are infiltrating other modes of transportation. It won't be enough to say "use Y or Z instead."
By flying, you agree to the terms to fly.
Last I checked, the contract of carriage for an individual airline, and airport security set up by the GOVERNMENT were unrelated to one another. And last I checked, the government had to abide by the constitution, and bill of rights.
There's nothing that harms or restricts your liberty to go through metal dectors and scanners.
Medal detectors I was not arguing against, you dolt, I was arguing against body imaging - which could go up against the 4th amendment. Ohio legislators are taking a swing at the tech, and so is the ACLU - very telling isn't it?
A company has every right to check you for weapons.
And what part of this being an act on the part of the federal government and not the individual airlines are you having trouble understanding?
Are you hiding something you shouldn't be?
None of your business.
Simple as that.
Nothing to hide is an impossible state of mind - you have privacy, you have things to hide - it is human nature... and I'd appreciate it if you brought argument instead of TSA talking points and mindless sheeplism.
At least I actually read what is going on and have the balls to call out BS when I see it. Clearly the TSA's word is good enough for you - even when the companies behind the tech they use, news reports, computer science, and basic logic disagrees.