Source
r/AskReddit•
sam480

I don't think the TSA scanners sound that bad. Why am I a terrible person?

Full disclosure: I am a Canadian who has never been subjected to one.

I posted in another thread that I would rather have every TSA agent in the world see my penis than let another terrorist attack take place. I don't think I'm pro-totalitarian, but I believe that the security is worth it.

My only qualm with them is if they will actually be successful in providing security. If they aren't effective, get them out of there.

It's become a pretty big deal on Reddit lately, but I guess I just don't get it.

Posted Nov 11, 2010, 3:19 AM UTC

219
Enoxice•

The whole idea of "security theater" is the problem here. You brought it up yourself in your post. This is almost certainly not going to stop terrorists from, well, terrorizing.

But even though this has questionable security benefits, it's going to stay in place indefinitely unless challenged.

2
sam480OP•

Is there evidence that it isn't effective?

I just feel like this is something it's worth taking one for the team for.

0
Enoxice•

Define effective. Does it keep people with bombs strapped to their chests from getting through security? Probably. Does the limited usefulness (being slightly better than previous systems at stopping people smuggling things through airport security) justify the invasiveness? Not in my opinion.

Should we install similar checkpoints at the entrances to shopping malls? What makes planes so special?

1
sam480OP•

If it can catch potential terrorists (this doesn't refer to everyone going through them, just the ones with the intention and means of ending the lives of many people while on the plane) that other currently used means cannot, then I would say it is effective.

Planes themselves can be used as weapons. I suppose it's more of a logistics argument, most crowded places have multiple entrances and it would just be too damn tricky.

1
NotYourMothersDildo•

The scanners cannot see inside rectums or vaginas. They are preventing nothing.

1
Enoxice•

Well I suppose we'll just have to disagree, then. I think this is far too invasive for such little tangible gain over past systems.

I'm probably not going to change your mind and you probably aren't going to change mine. We've both stated our cases and I don't think there's anything more I can say.

1
Lampshader•

Shooting the passengers in the head with an AK-47 would also stop potential terrorists. Perhaps we should evaluate some metrics other than effectiveness?

1
IntrepidPapaya•

Well, for one, there isn't a consensus that they're actually all that safe. We've gotten sort of trigger happy with radiation in security scanning, and there are those who are unconvinced that these are really as harmless as the TSA claims.

I think you have somewhat of a point in saying that you'd show your pecker to stop a terrorist attack. Sure, I would to. But does every man, woman, and child who flies showing their junk to the TSA really stop all terrorism? I don't think it's a coincidence that every airline terror attack in the United States that has been attempted and has come close to succeeding in the last decade have been from a previously unconsidered angle. Do we really think nobody, ever, will find a way to sneak something dangerous onto a plane through these scanners?

Better yet, do they even need anything dangerous? A boxcutter (weapon of choice for the September 11th attacks) is hardly a fearsome weapon. Sure, it'll dice up your finger pretty bad, but it's not a goddamn lightsaber. The power those hijackers had came from their concerted use of force, not from their weaponry.

So, I dislike them because they violate privacy to a degree never attempted before, in a way that may be much more dangerous than existing methods, and, to boot, I don't have a scrap of a belief that they will magically cure terrorism.

2
sam480OP•

Oooh, radiation is a big one. If they are found to be dangerous (and there better be some serious testing if they are using these willy nilly on people) then that would certainly be a big nail in their coffins.

I think they are from unconsidered angles because all of the considered angles were stopped up by preventative measures. If they didn't stop taking liquids, I'm sure liquid explosives would still be in vogue. So it either comes down to hoping you have enough, or constantly trying to have more than the other guy.

1
[deleted]•

look. using airplanes as a means of mass destruction / terrorisms was obsolete before the end of the day for 11Sept'01. There's absolutely ZERO patience for it (amongst the other passengers). There was a time when highjackings were a means to an end, and the perpetrators had a strong intention of surviving. two important things happened that changed the efficacy of air-terror, and also made any other attempts at air-terror useless.

  • re-enforced cockpit doors
  • a public that learned that fighting back was imperative

The rest of the "enhancements" to security that have happened since then are only going to raise the bar in the arms race of persons willing to blowed themselves up anyway. individuals willing to blow themselves up are probably not really dedicated to the idea that explosives must be externally applied; suppository explosives are probably in someone's future.

we spend all this money, inconvenience and delay (more money), humiliate (stomp on rights), for no measurable benefit.

1
MuddieMaeSuggins•

I don't think I'm pro-totalitarian, but I believe that the security is worth it.

How far are you willing to go, or let the TSA go, in the name of security?

1
[deleted]•

Why, yes, yes you are.

1