Body scanners can store, send images, group says

exampasser wrote: »

Don't forget to add **** bomber to the list.

I sat next to that guy once...

dynamik

Am I the only one that really doesn't have a problem with traveling? I'm out 2-3 weeks per month and taking off my shoes and sending them on a short ride on a conveyor belt really isn't that big of a deal. This last time I went through security, I was randomly pulled out of the line so some guy could pat me down. I think he worked for the TSA. Aside from being aroused for the next half-hour, it really didn't bother me.

RobertKaucher

veritas_libertas wrote: »

Glad we both agree... I gotta kinda nervous when this thread started getting heated, I really don't want to create a mess, just provoke thought.

Please remove "Senior Member" from your title and replace it with "Chief Instigator."

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Please remove "Senior Member" from your title and replace it with "Chief Instigator."

Harsh...

Oh, if you insist: Done

veritas_libertas wrote: »

Glad we both agree... I gotta kinda nervous when this thread started getting heated, I really don't want to create a mess, just provoke thought.

Sometimes its hard to get across what your intentions are with just typing so I thought I'd clarify I wasn't trying to preach to you lol. I don't get mad at others peoples opinions. I do like to argue a bit though. Whats the fun of having an opinion if no one challenges it?

networker050184 wrote: »

Sometimes its hard to get across what your intentions are with just typing so I thought I'd clarify I wasn't trying to preach to you lol. I don't get mad at others peoples opinions. I do like to argue a bit though. Whats the fun of having an opinion if no one challenges it?

I completely agree.

eMeS wrote: »

My solution is arm all of the passengers.

MS

Oh you have no idea how much I would *love* that particular solution. Having to deal with where I can and cannot take my sidearm is one big headache. Unfortunately, a large portion of society seems to be invested in a 'guns are bad' mindset. I'm not a fan of relying on the government to take care of me in any way. I would dearly love it if American's would make personal liberty well, PERSONAL again.

networker050184 wrote: »

Do you have a source for what all their job encompass or are you just assuming things? You know what they say about assuming things.....

Carrying large amounts of cash is suspicious behavior bottom line. If I had that much cash I wouldn't throw a hissy fit if they asked me what it was for.

I assume we're talking about the Ron Paul guy. If so, he was well under the limit to where he had to disclose a damn thing to anybody who's business it was. Cash is not illegal. The amount of cash he was carrying was not illegal, and the rule of law is still innocent until proven guilty in this country. Unless there's been some new development that uses cash to blow a plane up that I've somehow missed, the TSA guy was way out of line, and the campaign worker had his rights trampled upon. It took the FBI dude what, 30 seconds to figure out what was going on?

Sure, he could have made it easier on himself just by answering the questions, but those answers were no ones business but his own. Wasn't even *close* to a matter of national security, and I applaud him for standing up for himself. It's behavior like that which this country was founded on, after all. One of our core documents states that the Government derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed, and that it is the right and duty of the people to throw off a government which has become oppressive.

Of course, that same document states that we're predisposed to suffer when the suffering is regarded as bearable, so I guess Tommy knew what he was talking about. I think if more people were willing to stand up for themselves like that campaign worker was, America would be in a better place. Unfortunately, history shows time and time again that a government has to push it's people to the edge until the only adequate solution involves bloodshed.

Discussions like this just show how divided we are internally. It's no wonder that we're vulnerable to threats from the outside when we can't even keep our own house in order.

dynamik wrote: »

Am I the only one that really doesn't have a problem with traveling? I'm out 2-3 weeks per month and taking off my shoes and sending them on a short ride on a conveyor belt really isn't that big of a deal.

I too travel at least this much, and I also have no problem with what they ask me to do to get on a plane. I don't feel put out, nor do I feel it is an affront to my personal liberty.

dynamik wrote: »

This last time I went through security, I was randomly pulled out of the line so some guy could pat me down. I think he worked for the TSA. Aside from being aroused for the next half-hour, it really didn't bother me.

If the patch says "T&A" instead of "TSA" I'm told you shouldn't let them frisk you....

MS

GT-Rob

Flying is a privilege and an option. If you ever have a problem to the point that you don't want to travel, then you simply don't do it. You can keep your nakedness and dirty socks to yourself in your house.

You want to talk about liberties being violated, how about enough of these $100 flights that are $500 after tax. It costs me more to fly to Quebec than it does to France.

The US however does make it a miserable experience to come to your country, whether its by plane or car. I actually dread the customers/border people more than any security check. I cannot think of I time I have entered the country without feeling completely unwelcome and hated.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Oh you have no idea how much I would *love* that particular solution. Having to deal with where I can and cannot take my sidearm is one big headache. Unfortunately, a large portion of society seems to be invested in a 'guns are bad' mindset. I'm not a fan of relying on the government to take care of me in any way. I would dearly love it if American's would make personal liberty well, PERSONAL again.

Although I carry, I don't see the right to carry as being in any way equivalent to personal liberty. I feel like that whole argument gets blown way out of proportion...

I would prefer to be able to carry everywhere, without exception. Here in Texas there are very few places where we can't carry. There are however lots of places where you can carry where it would be really dumb to....

I think there's a tendency for people outside of Texas to think that this is the wild west, and we're pulling our guns all the time. That couldn't be further from the truth; In fact, if you pull your gun 1) you better have a really good reason, 2) you better not be drunk or high, 3) You better not have any possible escape route, and 3) you should fire it. Regardless if you were right or wrong you're going for a ride to the station and you will most likely be indicted. It's happened a few times here with people that were licensed.

I've lived in Texas my entire life, and I will always remember that the only times that I've had a gun pointed at me were both in wonderful peace-loving and gun-controlling France....

MS

eMeS wrote: »

I've lived in Texas my entire life, and I will always remember that the only times that I've had a gun pointed at me were both in wonderful peace-loving and gun-controlling France....

MS

Hehehe stupid American...

GT-Rob

Heres what the guy who sees 10,000 naked xrays a day is really doing

eMeS wrote: »

Although I carry, I don't see the right to carry as being in any way equivalent to personal liberty. I feel like that whole argument gets blown way out of proportion...

Eh, we'll just say I disagree. I think the wording on the second amendment is pretty darn clear.

Part of what annoys me is that, my firearms license is in Georgia, and we have reciprocity agreements to respect other states licenses, and they respect ours. If I travel a few hours south into Florida, I actually have more 'rights' with my sidearm than I do in my home state.

As far as ways and means to use a firearm, I don't think we're in disagreement there. Everything I've ever been taught says flat out that you don't point a firearm at something you don't intend to kill, and you don't do that unless you are in mortal fear for your own life, or that of others

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Oh you have no idea how much I would *love* that particular solution. Having to deal with where I can and cannot take my sidearm is one big headache. Unfortunately, a large portion of society seems to be invested in a 'guns are bad' mindset. I'm not a fan of relying on the government to take care of me in any way. I would dearly love it if American's would make personal liberty well, PERSONAL again.

We should get together and do some shooting sometime. My AR has been in the closet to long. Atlanta isn't that far from me.

eMeS wrote: »

Although I carry, I don't see the right to carry as being in any way equivalent to personal liberty. I feel like that whole argument gets blown way out of proportion...

Not to try and start a fight, but it's hard to keep somebody oppressed if they can fire back at you...

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I assume we're talking about the Ron Paul guy. If so, he was well under the limit to where he had to disclose a damn thing to anybody who's business it was. Cash is not illegal. The amount of cash he was carrying was not illegal, and the rule of law is still innocent until proven guilty in this country. Unless there's been some new development that uses cash to blow a plane up that I've somehow missed, the TSA guy was way out of line, and the campaign worker had his rights trampled upon. It took the FBI dude what, 30 seconds to figure out what was going on?

Sure, he could have made it easier on himself just by answering the questions, but those answers were no ones business but his own. Wasn't even *close* to a matter of national security, and I applaud him for standing up for himself. It's behavior like that which this country was founded on, after all. One of our core documents states that the Government derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed, and that it is the right and duty of the people to throw off a government which has become oppressive.

Of course, that same document states that we're predisposed to suffer when the suffering is regarded as bearable, so I guess Tommy knew what he was talking about. I think if more people were willing to stand up for themselves like that campaign worker was, America would be in a better place. Unfortunately, history shows time and time again that a government has to push it's people to the edge until the only adequate solution involves bloodshed.

Discussions like this just show how divided we are internally. It's no wonder that we're vulnerable to threats from the outside when we can't even keep our own house in order.

They guy wanted to fly on someones plane. If he doesn't want the people that protect that plane to ask him questions then he should just not fly. I could understand the argument if they busted in his house and asked him why he had so much cash, but that is not what happened. And maybe its just me because I have actually sacrificed to give people their freedom, but people just expect way to much and aren't willing to give anything up. If I could have a safe plane ride I'd be willing to give up nude pics of me to everyone in the world (I'll do it for free if you guys want to see PM me

) and let them ask me about everything I bring on the plane. That just doesn't seem like an outrageous request to me.

L0gicB0mb508

***** Star*

*edit* *Adult Movie Star*

Filter Pwnd

veritas_libertas wrote: »

Not to try and start a fight, but it's hard to keep somebody oppressed if they can fire back at you...

Yeah, don't want to get in a fight either but that seems like a weak point considering the weaponry of today.

The government has armaments well beyond the few firearms that I have. They could wipe me out in an instant with a single armed Predator drone.

Does the 2nd amendment say that we should all have armed Predator drones so that I can protect myself from an oppressive government? I think not, but I also think this isn't the place to discuss it....

I do agree that the 2nd amendment is very clear, however, I don't define personal liberty as the right to arm myself.

MS

eMeS wrote: »

I think not, but I also think this isn't the place to discuss it....

Agreed, I think I am done...

Back to the books

networker050184 wrote: »

They guy wanted to fly on someones plane. If he doesn't want the people that protect that plane to ask him questions then he should just not fly. I could understand the argument if they busted in his house and asked him why he had so much cash, but that is not what happened. And maybe its just me because I have actually sacrificed to give people their freedom, but people just expect way to much and aren't willing to give anything up. If I could have a safe plane ride I'd be willing to give up nude pics of me to everyone in the world (I'll do it for free if you guys want to see PM me ) and let them ask me about everything I bring on the plane. That just doesn't seem like an outrageous request to me.

The guy wanted to fly on a plane that was privately owned and operated by a for profit business. It wasn't the airlines people people that were questioning him. If it was, I'd agree with you, as I have the utmost respect for the rights of a private business in regards to their property.

The TSA exists under the claimed need of national security. A guy transporting a box full of cash and checks made out to Ron Paul's campaign has absolutely nothing to do with national security, as I seriously doubt that Ron Paul has folks out soliciting funds to stage a coup. It was a gross abuse of authority, and I seriously doubt this is an isolated incident. The bottom line is that the campaign worker was doing nothing wrong, and yet he was treated as though he was. I empathize with the worker, because were my integrity to be questioned in such a manner, I'd react in much the same way.

I respect your opinion that you're willing to put up with some unpleasantness in order to have a safe ride, but I'll go back to Franklin again -

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

As the Christmas Day attempt brought into the national spotlight, the TSA cannot guarantee your safety. The safety brought about by all the little injustices is illusory. The loss of freedom and liberty... that is something that is quite real.

eMeS wrote: »

Yeah, don't want to get in a fight either but that seems like a weak point considering the weaponry of today.

The government has armaments well beyond the few firearms that I have. They could wipe me out in an instant with a single armed Predator drone.

Well, sure, but look at it this way - history has shown that bands of guerrilla's who are outnumbered and outgunned can be quite effective.

History has also shown what happens when an unarmed populace goes up against well armed military units.

Which one of those would you rather be?

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I respect your opinion that you're willing to put up with some unpleasantness in order to have a safe ride, but I'll go back to Franklin again -

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

As the Christmas Day attempt brought into the national spotlight, the TSA cannot guarantee your safety. The safety brought about by all the little injustices is illusory. The loss of freedom and liberty... that is something that is quite real.

IMO you are taking that quote the wrong way. I'm all about peoples rights and liberties, don't get me wrong, but not explaining what you have brought with you on public transportation just isn't a right or essential liberty to me. Maybe I just look at things in a different light, but I just can't fathom how telling why you have a lot of cash with you is a big deal. Its not like they forced him into slavery took away his right to vote.

networker050184 wrote: »

IMO you are taking that quote the wrong way. I'm all about peoples rights and liberties, don't get me wrong, but not explaining what you have brought with you on public transportation just isn't a right or essential liberty to me. Maybe I just look at things in a different light, but I just can't fathom how telling why you have a lot of cash with you is a big deal. Its not like they forced him into slavery took away his right to vote.

Let me ask a question - is it ok to talk about your salary in the workplace? It's not in mine, and those kinds of discussions are regarded can lead to suspension and up to termination.

Ever had a family member of friend try to talk to you about your finances?

Ever been through an IRS audit?

Money is a touchy subject, and is quite often considered a persons personal business, and discussions over it are quite often of an adversarial nature.

I don't believe in debt. I carry fairly large sums of cash on my person because I believe that if you can't pay for it, you can't buy it. I carry cash as behavior reinforcement, it's hard to actually let go of my cash, as opposed to how easy it is to just swipe a plastic card. If I have to actually hand over bills for a purchase, it makes me think twice about whether or not I really need to buy the item.

I also carry a firearm.

Hrm, I carry cash and a gun. I must be a drug dealer!

It's a ridiculous presumption, and no law abiding citizen should have to put up with such things. I do not disagree with the doctrine of the authorities to detain and question in the presence of reasonable doubt, but being in possession of cash is not reasonable doubt. Especially when there were checks made out a political campaign in the same box! A little bit of common sense from the TSA goon, and the private citizen probably wouldn't have been hassled. Thank god that FBI agent had some.

A large part of the problem is that too many people confuse societal norms and legality. It's not 'normal' to carry large amounts of cash, so the person doing so must be doing something bad! What a horrible logical fallacy that is.

I'm sure you'll forgive me if I resent the possibility of being a victim of someone else's inability to use their brain.

dynamik

Is there really no middle-ground guys? I'm no fan of being harassed, but at the same time, it seems like irregular behavior might be worth a casual look.

dynamik wrote: »

Is there really no middle-ground guys? I'm no fan of being harassed, but at the same time, it seems like irregular behavior might be worth a casual look.

Well, that's part of the problem - how do you define irregular behavior? For a country that was founded on the concept of personal freedom, there really isn't such a thing as normal. If you try to enforce that, it's against the very ideals the country was founded on.

And honestly, look at the state of our society today. We're slothful, indulgent self-righteous sons of bitches who've mortgaged at least our children's futures, if not their childrens. Normal is the last thing I want to be.

dynamik wrote: »

Is there really no middle-ground guys? I'm no fan of being harassed, but at the same time, it seems like irregular behavior might be worth a casual look.

That is my point. Irregular behavior such as carrying large amounts of cash deserve at least the due diligence of questioning. If someone can't agree with that, I don't know what world they think they live in.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Well, that's part of the problem - how do you define irregular behavior? For a country that was founded on the concept of personal freedom, there really isn't such a thing as normal. If you try to enforce that, it's against the very ideals the country was founded on.

And honestly, look at the state of our society today. We're slothful, indulgent self-righteous sons of bitches who've mortgaged at least our children's futures, if not their childrens. Normal is the last thing I want to be.

Whats "normal" to bring on a flight is up to the discretion of the TSA agents at that particular time. Just like whats "suspicious" activity is up to the police officers personal discretion.

If you read the TSA agent was only disciplined for using the foul language and not being professional. He did nothing wrong in asking about what he deemed to be out of the norm. If we go by your logic gun shaped masses or people with fuses hanging out of their shoe shouldn't be questioned either because its their right to hang fuses out of what ever piece of clothing they want!

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Which one of those would you rather be?

Neither. I want to be happy.

For me carrying a gun is completely utilitarian. It has nothing to do with some higher moral stance, and I think most of the arguments against oppressive government conveniently ignore the fact that the the 2nd amendment was written over 200 years ago in language that had specific meaning in that time.

Let those of you that are oppressed here in the US please stand and be counted....honestly, I don't feel oppression from government at all, in fact, I feel like large corporations are much more oppressive.

MS