Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports

[^_^ 5,021]

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the new full-body security-screening machines at the country's airports, as most say they put higher priority on combating terrorism than protecting personal privacy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But half of all those polled say enhanced pat-down searches go too far.

...

One possibility that could generate public support is the use of profiling at airports, where the TSA would single out specific passengers for extra screening based on available information. Overall, 70 percent of Americans back the idea, which has been floated as an alternative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112205514.html

[Pooky 3,828]

It would be great if they weren't just a panacea to assuage the fears of the American flying public. But it really is just one, big con-job - a front for some people to make a lot of money playing on people's fears.

Also, the TSA should not be allowed to get involved in passenger profiling. Let the airline selling the ticket do more extensive background checks, or require them to do so, including detailed travel histories to produce a risk assessment for the TSA (or the more sane version that's sure to follow once the dust has settled on the current organisation) to act upon.

[^_^ 5,021]

Also, the TSA should not be allowed to get involved in passenger profiling.

Maybe if TSA employees were paid more and it attracted a higher caliber of employee...

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What are they doing in Australia? That is where we need to look for a better way to screen passengers.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's a damning verdict of Americans. Two thirds actually fall for the show in our airports. Pathetic. Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? Pfft.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Heil Fuhrer Obama!!!

Heil Nazi USA!!!!

Take us. We are sheep for your slaughter!!

Edited November 23, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Where's the ACLU now that our dear Leader is President? The silence is deafening.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Where's the ACLU now that our dear Leader is President? The silence is deafening.

Bush would have to still be President for them to stand up against this....

[^_^ 5,021]

Where's the ACLU now that our dear Leader is President? The silence is deafening.

Bush would have to still be President for them to stand up against this....

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse

Dumbasses.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I'm unsure what the controversy is about profiling and why that isn't a possible solution. I thought we already lived in a surveillance society under the Patriot Act and that by the age of 23 the intelligence agencies already had a basic profile on every citizen. With the way electronic media is today there are websites collecting our public information and organizing it for anyone to view online and sometimes more detailed information is offered for a fee. I've run across several websites that can pin point your location based on your phone number. Google street view shows images of your address. I've watched documentaries on Frontline that would blow your mind at the data mining technology they have that shows what they're gathering and who they know you're connected with. So why is the "P" word considered a no no? One opposition argument I've heard is the number of profiles is too large but I mean look at the information they've already gathered and are able to gather. Is this some coy ploy to get us to let them openly profile us like reverse psychology where they've put us between a rock and hard spot forcing us to make the decision they want us to?

Several people have offered European and Israel security as an example for a solution for our current problem. I've read a little about the way Israel security works with airports. My friend shared this article with me that explains the different levels. High Security with little bother to people But I wonder do we really want to be like Israel? I don't know enough about it to tell if it's really a good thing or a bad thing with the way things are going. All I know is what is happening right now isn't right.

After reading the article however it had me thinking about the Israeli Palestine issue. I had the idea that what if if the aim of the terrorists was to make us feel how they feel. By attacking us and bringing the war home to our western countries it seems our own security system is turning on the honest people in their own countries. Why is that when we are not the terrorists? It seems they are looking in the wrong spot. However, I've also read that they just want us off their lands and out of their countries and way of life. They want their own freedom. That our being there is considered by many an occupation. The whole Arab world dislikes that we support Israel while Gaza is seen as this open air prison. Some say it's the largest open air prison but what if we're turning our own country into the largest open air prison? We certainly couldn't be apathetic to the actions of our big government presences overseas when the same thing is happening to us in our own country could we? As long as it's happening to others and not us it's alright? Out of sight out of mind? Our government is great and we are justified in what we are doing in other countries in the name of national security because they are the terrorists not us? They are the target not us, right? When did we all become the targets of our government? Anyways, I'm still looking for answers to this conflict between our worlds in hope that we may have some healing and resolution and live in peace and understanding instead of war.

I dislike seeing a child being strip searched and reading about cancer survivors being humiliated and their medical privacy violated while watching the people who we elect as our leaders bypass this same security system they implemented on the honest hard working people of the US. It doesn't make me feel equal with them when they are given privileges that have been taken from us. We're the ones who put them in those offices of importance to represent us.

They are telling us it is necessary when they won't do it themselves? They echo that it's the only way when that is a lie. There are always other ways.

"No airport pat-down for the incoming House speaker. On Friday, the GOP's John Boehner was guided past the metal detectors and hand inspections given to other passengers on his flight home to Ohio. Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel said his boss followed procedures set by Capitol Police and the Transportation Security Administration. Steel said the same rules apply to other congressional leaders."

My link

Hillary Clinton doesn't want one. Obama doesn't have to have one. Not for the ruling elite eh, but as for the rest of us?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse

Dumbasses.

Indeed. Closing their eyes and then complaining that they can't see. It's what's expected from that corner.

[Jenn! 918]

One possibility that could generate public support is the use of profiling at airports, where the TSA would single out specific passengers for extra screening based on available information. Overall, 70 percent of Americans back the idea, which has been floated as an alternative.

Why did you sum that up as 'racial profiling'? That's not how it reads to me. If they're going to pick someone out of a line because they're brown, that's miles away from targeting someone because of their travel history.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Bush would have to still be President for them to stand up against this....

These measures actually began under Bush's administration. But don't let facts disrupt your feigned outrage. Mach es dir selber.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Rob & Mel

[slim 1,530]

What are they doing in Australia? That is where we need to look for a better way to screen passengers.

Aussies are super racist.

That's a damning verdict of Americans. Two thirds actually fall for the show in our airports. Pathetic. Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? Pfft.

I remember having a post-Patriot Act conversation with a buddy of mine. He was all for profiling and wiretapping, etc., because, "we're after a certain group of folks." I said that was all well and good, but what happened when the govt. switched to a different group of folks, say, white guys with an Irish background?

"That'll never happen."

Sure, it may never happen and I hope it doesn't. But, now, instead of being constitutionally protected against it, you've actually supported the govt.'s right to do it.

"Well, that's not what I meant."

I know. You meant it's OK to discriminate against brown people, just not people who look like you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I remember having a post-Patriot Act conversation with a buddy of mine. He was all for profiling and wiretapping, etc., because, "we're after a certain group of folks." I said that was all well and good, but what happened when the govt. switched to a different group of folks, say, white guys with an Irish background?

"That'll never happen."

Sure, it may never happen and I hope it doesn't. But, now, instead of being constitutionally protected against it, you've actually supported the govt.'s right to do it.

"Well, that's not what I meant."

I know. You meant it's OK to discriminate against brown people, just not people who look like you.

Effective security cannot be based on racial profiling - that would be both problematic from a discrimination point of view as well as largely ineffective.

Behavioral profiling has, however, proven to be quite successful as a tool for airport security. Consider that not a single hi-jacking attempt of an airliner coming out of Ben Gurion has been successful. Now you know that that particular airport as well as El-Al airlines are a prime target for a particular crowd.

What we're doing here in terms of airport security is nothing but show (and business) and runs under the headline: Hey look, we're doing something. While it apparently makes enough people feel safer - there'd be a much bigger revolt if that wasn't the case - it doesn't really make them safer.