NJ Legislation Bans TSA Scanners + More

the fact of the matter is you can die at any time and to allow these fascist measures because you're scared a terrorist might hijack/blow up your plane, you're a pussy. how many planes have taken off and flown in the past 10 years? how many have been blown up/hijacked. You're more likely a terrorist pilot exists than another hijacking attempt, and if your pilot is a terrorist, nothing will stop them from smacking the plane into a building.

Context, broadened efforts not initiated. They've had no widespread success in attacking other means of transportation in America to the extent that it invokes widespread fear of traveling by those methods. Only to the point that more money is spent on security. I think airlines are still their primary target.

dunno if where you live requires uninsured motor vehicle insurance on every plan, but here does, and for good reason.

I'm 24 and my insurance is cheap as ***, has been steadily going down since I got my own, and I have several tickets...

Go on vent for a minute.

quite frankly always Federal laws > state laws, however these practices violate one's rights guaranteed by the constitution no matter what law or act is passed the constitution is > all.

That being said, I don't see where this interferes with Federal Law, with TSA policy yes, but not law.

USA is filled with a bunch of idiots who think "oh they won't attack us via airplane again"

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-yemen-planned-northwest-flight-253-bomb-plot/story?id=9426085
2009 christmas -- attempted bombing plot that ALMOST made it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/11/11/ink-cartridge-bomb-found-at-east-midlands-could-have-exploded-over-america-115875-22708013/
Even tho it was probably faked, it still became an issue. what if someone did smuggle a bomb on a plane that way?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/8113296/Asian-man-boards-plane-disguised-as-old-white-man.html
that's how easy it is to get on board a plane ELSEWHERE

So seriously, do you really think terrorists are thinking "We already used the plane, let's not do it again"?

Terrorist are Terrorist, they'll use ANYTHING to attack us, whether it's anthrax, planes, car bombs, so on. They'll keep doing it whether you *** like it or not. TSA scanners help the chances of such things from happening become lower than it was before they adopted it.

You idiots need to think before you get pissed off. They did that for YOUR own safety. If you have nothing on you, then you shouldn't even be worried about it for the slightest bit. Do you just want it gone because you, yourself, are a terrorist?

Seat belt laws are in place to protect others from you, we don't care if you die. Others could be drivers, police/fire/medics who are dealing with you instead of other issues, the list goes on. You're welcome to do what you want on your own property, but if you go into public, you are involving the rest of society.

While it's true that the TSA stuff is mostly benign, the point is that the government has unnecessarily sacrificed too many freedoms. I do support x-ray luggage scans. I do support behaviour-based detection. Both of those are well documented at preventing problems, and do so frequently, and with minimal privacy/personal liberty impact.

The backscatter and shoe removal, and however, are neither regularly preventing problems nor minimally inconvenient. If they were, I suspect the public would take a much different attitude.

I'm an engineer - I'm willing to trade temporary suspension of privacy and freedom for a greater good. But that's not the case here. We're trading those things for no return, it's just a net loss!

I have one thing to say to the people who think that what the TSA is doing is a good thing:

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! (sheep sound, in case you don't get it)

Wake up, sheeple.

you had a good point until this, and quite frankly you are *** stupid for saying it.

People don't like the scanners because they'd rather deal with a possible threat than having their personal liberties violated, and I applaud them for it, that's the kind of thing America was founded on, and that's true American value, not being pussies being afraid of some nut jobs that want to kill us, the governments job is to eliminate the threat, not violate our liberties at a slim chance to deter it.

I'm aiming this more at these idiots who complain about going through a scanner just to ensure you and probably hundreds of other individuals from anything happening, could be from a plane/train/bus/boat etc... from being hijacked, could just be as simple as preventing... well... any possible threat from happening.

But what do people do?

***, whine, complain, sue.

What do they do when something bad happens?

*** about how we aren't "Safe", whine to the authorities about "how they didn't do their job", complain about how there should be been steps put in place to stop this.

and Suing? Don't get me started, I see more then enough frivolous lawsuits that happen over mildly HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE things.

seat belt laws are in place for one reason and one reason only: insurance companies, that's common knowledge.

Me not wearing my seat belt doesn't affect you in any way (I wear it anyway, but some people don't want to and they shouldn't be forced to)

Not at all - I think, as you linked to, that they will attempt airline-based terrorism again. Air terror has been working reasonably well for ~40 years, no reason to give it up now.

However, the backscatter and shoe removal is not going to stop it. After all, if a terrorist wanted to bomb a plane, and knew those would be in place, don't you think they'd use a different method? Think of them like hackers - you can close a security hole, but it's effectively impossible to close them all.

If the airports enforced their own security measures at the time, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, they allowed them on the plane with box cutters which was against their policy. Creating a government agency to deal with it is a decent idea, but to allow them to go this far isn't.

You bet it does. If I'm a passenger in a car with another occupant that wasn't wearing a seat belt, your flying body can kill me. That's not insurance - that's my safety. Not to mention all the medics/police/hospital efforts that are required because you're a moron.

lol I know it's because of personal liberties being violated, I just wanted to point out that if they don't abide by the new safety, then give them an Idea on what TSA and the government might think about that certain individual when they make a huge fit about it, like that one radio talk show host girl.

You're going on a plane, for pete sake. You're going high in the sky where it'll take more than a good while for help to arrive IF there's a terrorist on your plane mid-flight. They're trying to prevent that. You getting in the way of it makes you look like a terrorist yourself (that's the point i was trying to make)

I would personally take my chance of being on a hijacked plane vs having someone grope me well I'm tring to travel.


Maybe something you should read.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99845.htm

The 100's of millions they are spending on Air travel safety. Maybe better spend stopping these people.
http://www.travelchannel.com/TV_Shows/Americas_Worst_Driver/Video





I like how lowering the risk of something that happens less then .00001% of all flights. How low do you want it 0%. Well you live in a dream world.

Not that I agree with the TSA scanners but it seems that NOBODY has been to the actual TSA website. I've been there. I've seen the images the scanners take. You may as well be looking an ink blot of a person. There is no detail, there is no privacy invasion. People need to grow the *** up and do some research before they complain.

Furthmore, flying is a privilege not a right. If you don't want to obey laws to fly then don't fly. Personally, I think their methods are poorly chosen but I would rather support them until we find something better.

They help. Then as it stands it's a matter of whether the gov't will pay for the health care afterward. IE: 9/11 responders.

Here's another idea - to take TSA stuff to an extreme, let's assume that in order to fly, there was a 30 day waiting period on all flights, you had to have an in depth interview and background check, you had to fly naked, no baggage was allowed, escorts were required in the the on-board lavatories (planes would need to be retrofitted, of course), etc. If you did all that, I think the chances of a terrorist attack would be incredibly low - but so would the interest in flying.

It sounds a bit odd to say, but I'm willing to take some amount of risk to keep my liberties. That is, the value of my privacy and liberties has a quantifiable number to it, which has been exceeded with some of the current measures. That tradeoff level is going to be different for each person. I think what this NJ bill (not a law yet) is trying to say is that that particular level has now been reached for the majority of the population.

Exactly. It comes down to what is considered reasonable and unreasonable. I think the patdowns are unreasonable. I think the scanners are not. If people actually did research before they ran their mouth they probably wouldn't care about the scanners. However, we live in a day when journalism isn't about research. It's about sensationalism.

Enter the privilege nonsense again.

I'd rather not be a pussy than scan and/or feel up anyone, but that's just me.

Fighting "Terrorism" by living in fear and depriving you of personal liberties is like trying to put out fire by fanning the flame.

I'm for Security, But as was said earlier, You have to think of Terrorists like hackers, They know what securities are in place as much as we do, if they wanted to find to get around it they probably could.

For instance, Could make a time bomb you can swallow? Scanners/pat Downs won't pick that up. Even if its harmful to their health, They're getting blown up anyway, they just gotta make it on the plane.

We need Security, We need at the very least an illusion of safety (which to be quite frank all the TSA is), but once it starts violating personal liberties and the Constitution, its gone too far, and at the very least needs to be reevaluated.

I'm for Security, I'm for as much protection as possible, but I'm not for being deprived of personal liberties granted to us by thousands upon thousands of people who died for those beliefs. It may sound dumb to some but America was founded on these freedoms, And i quite appreciate them.

Edit: I have a feeling I'm going to regret getting into this argument. Changing someones mind is impossible.

This is what I'm trying to say - we've already reached the point where the current (pre-backscatter) methods and policies are better. We are being effective in preventing attacks. There hasn't been a successful attack since 9/11.

If being the key word.

Oh believe me I am against the TSA. I just don't think any of you have done any research to understand why you're against it. Technically none of you have an opinion.

Here is a scanner picture:

http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/mmw_large.jpg

http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/backscatter_large.jpg

I think that people are overacting. The only reason I am against this is because once we go this far we'll never take back this freedom. However, the scanners themselves aren't the issue. The issue is the slippery slope.

Taking precaution isn't living in fear. I'm not afraid of my house burning down, but I make sure I don't bring a can of gasoline inside. I'm simply preventing something from happening.