Terrorism and the TSA page 3

172 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Did you miss the part where the TSA has not caught the first terrorist in ten years?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Further, because the ‘terrorists’ know such a search will be carried out, it puts them off going through, knowing they will be arrested impotently if they do so.

  
Yes, unless you are under suspicion of a crime, they are unreasonably searching you…and without a warrant.

But you are under suspicion of a crime. That’s why they are searching you. They search everyone, to avoid a repeat of the crime of 9/11.

Did you know that recently (within the month I believe) a guy took over a commercial jet in Colorado? He taxied it until he hit a fence.

He was an accredited pilot, not a passenger. He stole an empty plane, and shot himself in it. That’s why it taxied off the end of the runway.

The TSA is there to prevent terrorists taking over planes that are being filled with living beings. It is not there to security cordon unused planes.

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt, in improving general airport security, and ensuring craft not being used are locked down. But it was completely outside the TSA’s jurisdiction.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:
Since it’s inception, the TSA has never caught a single terrorist with their so called security at airports.

Well I’m pretty sure they’ve found some other stuff, maybe not something that would qualify as terrorism.

Oh, and answer me this, would you be more willing (if you wanted to blow shit up) to take a bomb to an airport knowing that you will be searched, and there’s a pretty damn good chance that they’d find it, or one where you don’t have to be searched, or not enough so that they would find it?

Originally posted by jhco50:

Did you miss the part where the TSA has not caught the first terrorist in ten years? Yes, unless you are under suspicion of a crime, they are unreasonably searching you…and without a warrant.

Did you miss the part where she said they don’t want any harmful material getting onto a crowded plane?

No it doesn’t scare off the terrorists, they just come up with another tactic.

And you know that…?

They aren’t a stupid people you know.

Some aren’t, some are.

Did you know that recently (within the month I believe) a guy took over a commercial jet in Colorado? He taxied it until he hit a fence.

Because we will totally believe everything you say, even though you still didn’t give a source.

The TSA is going through the motions, but they are of no value. Where there is a will.

There are all kinds of ways to cause havoc at the airport. The plane is just one way. I won’t get into specifics, but a lot could happen and the TSA couldn’t do a think about it. Think about it Tenco, it isn’t hard to figure out a way if you really wanted to. Yes, thy have found some stuff. They took a pair of fingernail clippers from a little set my mother was bringing to give my daughter for her birthday once.

I thought that was why they were doing the unconstitutional searches? Have the two separated? I know that because I think and tactics like this are very easy to figure out.

You know, I don’t care if you believe me or not. You could look it up and if you don’t find it you can call me a liar…at least until I produce it.

Oops! My mistake, it was in Utah.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-crashed-plane-utah-wanted-girlfriends-killing-skywest/story?id=16796062

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Did you miss the part where the TSA has not caught the first terrorist in ten years?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Further, because the ‘terrorists’ know such a search will be carried out, it puts them off going through, knowing they will be arrested impotently if they do so.

  
Yes, unless you are under suspicion of a crime, they are unreasonably searching you…and without a warrant.

But you are under suspicion of a crime. That’s why they are searching you. They search everyone, to avoid a repeat of the crime of 9/11.

Did you know that recently (within the month I believe) a guy took over a commercial jet in Colorado? He taxied it until he hit a fence.

He was an accredited pilot, not a passenger. He stole an empty plane, and shot himself in it. That’s why it taxied off the end of the runway.

The TSA is there to prevent terrorists taking over planes that are being filled with living beings. It is not there to security cordon unused planes.

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt, in improving general airport security, and ensuring craft not being used are locked down. But it was completely outside the TSA’s jurisdiction.

Think about what you are saying here. You are saying that everyone who goes to the airport are guilty of a potential crime. In America you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Yes, he was a pilot and the plane was empty. That doesn’t diminish the fact he got into that plane and was taxiing it down the runway. He did not work for the airline did he. He was an outside entity that managed to take control of a plane and taxi off. could he have placed a bomb instead? Where was the TSA? Inside strip-searching a little old lady or some toddler for a bomb? I say that because they don’t check anyone who looks Muslim because it is considered profiling. Can they get any more stupid? That’s government for you. I know the airport was embarrassed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Think about it Tenco, it isn’t hard to figure out a way if you really wanted to. Yes, thy have found some stuff. They took a pair of fingernail clippers from a little set my mother was bringing to give my daughter for her birthday once.

And they’ve found plenty of other stuff that would make your point seem worth less.

I thought that was why they were doing the unconstitutional searches? Have the two separated? I know that because I think and tactics like this are very easy to figure out.

Wait, what are you replying to now?

You know, I don’t care if you believe me or not.

Alright, I don’t really know what word there is that can describe that attitude that you took, but definitely isn’t anything good.

You could look it up and if you don’t find it you can call me a liar…at least until I produce it.

Didn’t we already go over with you just how stupid to do that. (Claim something, not give a source, and then tell people to go and find it themselves?)

Oops! My mistake, it was in Utah.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-crashed-plane-utah-wanted-girlfriends-killing-skywest/story?id=16796062

Except there’s still the part where you left out important details that, coincidentally, would have made your example carry less weight.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Think about what you are saying here. You are saying that everyone who goes to the airport are guilty of a potential crime.

Except that she isn;t, she specifically said that you are under suspicion of a crime, not that you did or didn’t.

Yes, he was a pilot and the plane was empty. That doesn’t diminish the fact he got into that plane and was taxiing it down the runway.

No, however it does diminish your claim that the TSA is worthless, as he was a pilot, and that it was empty, so the TSA really didn’t need to search anyone.

He did not work for the airline did he. He was an outside entity that managed to take control of a plane and taxi off. could he have placed a bomb instead?

If he had and made a bomb, maybe, but I don’t really see the point in that.

Where was the TSA? Inside strip-searching a little old lady or some toddler for a bomb?

Oh God, not this emotive bullshit again.

I say that because they don’t check anyone who looks Muslim because it is considered profiling.

Do I really have to ask you for your source at this point?

 
Flag Post

Really? ABC wasn’t good enough? They are liberal leaning you know. What did I leave out? Keep in mind I didn’t write the report and I wasn’t on site when it happened. I read the same sources you do.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Really? ABC wasn’t good enough?

I didn’t say it was.

They are liberal leaning you know. What did I leave out?

Do you really need me to spell out that you “forgot” that he was a pilot and the plane was empty.

Keep in mind I didn’t write the report and I wasn’t on site when it happened.

Why are you not getting the part where “guy hijacks plane” is much “heavier” than “accredited pilot gets into empty plane and shoots himself?”

I read the same sources you do.

Yeah, there’s no way in hell that you could know that, so stop acting as if you do.

 
Flag Post

I already discussed that with Vika above. The reason it doesn’t matter who took the plane, he didn’t work for the company yet he gained access to the plane. He didn’t have to be a pilot to plant a bomb and just leave if he wanted to. The fact of the matter is TSA is there to prevent a bomb getting on the plane and this guy had potential to do just that.

Umm, you are taking that a little too narrow. I meant we get our news from public sources. We both use the same public airways to get our news. Seriously, you wanted to call me on that?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I already discussed that with Vika above. The reason it doesn’t matter who took the plane, he didn’t work for the company yet he gained access to the plane. He didn’t have to be a pilot to plant a bomb and just leave if he wanted to. The fact of the matter is TSA is there to prevent a bomb getting on the plane and this guy had potential to do just that.

The TSA is there to prevent dangerous substances from being smuggled onto a plane in actual operation. They are not there to safeguard a plane that is not in operation. Before it is put into operation again, there should be checks made on it, yes. It should also be locked when not in operation. Both of these are the responsibility of the owner of the plane to carry out, although there is reason to believe the TSA should sweep the plane before passengers are permitted to board.

Since there were no passengers in this situation, and it is unlikely hte plane was to be used any time soon, there would have been no point in wasting money on a sweep of a disused plane, whn the sweep would have to be done again anyway, before passengers were let on board.

Locking the plane is beyond their remit, in the same manner as it is beyond the police’s remit to check you have locked your car before you walk off and leave it.

Umm, you are taking that a little too narrow. I meant we get our news from public sources. We both use the same public airways to get our news. Seriously, you wanted to call me on that?

Different sources have differning amounts of bias. You tend to check highly biased sources, rather than ones that actually stop to check their facts before spewing their opinions. This is self-evident when your sources either have no sources of their own, or their own sources disagree with their statement of the facts.

 
Flag Post
Not at all naive. We’ve done it before, countless times. Remember our previous discussion regarding feminism? Same basic principle. You have to fight within the system, to force the system to change.

yeah, they made a very strong stance against something. they picketed, they demonstrated, they went to jail. they didn’t go “oh, lets accept this situation, but appeal to them to think of us too when they cast their vote”. no! they said “i’m not gonna put up with this”. they demanded radical change. and they didn’t get it for a very long time.

your argument proves my point, not yours.

I also said the airline companies like it. You ignored that bit. Having such security decreases the cost of their insurance, for obvious reasons. Airports are after all, commercial ports.

wait… what you are now saying is that something that should be the airport companies’ costs are being payed for by the tax-payer. no wonder they like it! it’s corruption!

this preference of theirs is quite irrelevant.

If you had been following the discussion post by post, instead of responding to the last one only, you would see that I had stated we need to make changes to the system, to minimise the invasion of rights whilst keeping the security standards just as high. Change is a slow process, especially in recession. Still, it is happening. With regards to the issues with prosthetics users for example, change is slowly occuring. The CastScope project is an example of this. They are still in limited supply, not installed at every port as of yet, but are already a way of decreasing the invasion of privacy for a highly put upon type of traveller.

Continued innovations like this one are necessary, in order to slowly render security a more and more invisible part of the travelling experience. It is no-longer invading your rights when you don’t even notice it is there, and receive no negative feedback (unless you are trying to blow up a plane, smuggle contraband, or take a flight hostage).

oh sure! impliment something horrible, and over decades of time, make a few slight consessions, that is such a great justification. yeah, good thing! what kind of attitude is that?

seriously, even though this whole thing was partly installed because of an underpants bomber in Schiphol (Haarlemerliede airport, normally falsely called Amsterdam airport (i live in Haarlem =P)), if they tried something this bad in the Netherlands, nobody would put up with it. we would drill our politicians at open debates about it, and i’m quite convinced many politicians would drill their collegues in kamervragen and such. and we would demonstrate and possibly massively obstruct them.

in fact i don’t think they’d get enough employees to comply with it, because nobody wants to work at a corporation that people hate. and the police wouldn’t stand for it either. they wouldn’t so diligently take TSA side because the government tells them too. they’re not the governments drones AS MUCH as they are in the US. (still far too much though — actually, i’m not so sure about police)

bet you most employees working for such a company would simply refuse to do it. they’d just collectively refuse to do their job. in fact, i would personally hold them accountable for not refusing to work there or to do their job. i never fly, but i would let them have it, whoof, you wouldn’t wanna be around.

Not if you continually fight for less and less invasive means of doing so. You work with the system, kneading it in your hands, until you reshape it into something that everybody is happy with. Each time they bring in a new system, you do the exact same thing. Making sure everyone wins is the goal.

so, you let them make it worse time and time again, and then make them gradually make it slightly less bad then the original implimentation. this means you lose.

if you start at a neutral 0, and they subtract 10 points with a snap of their finger, and you spend decades winning two or three points back, and this process repeats, you end up losing everything.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

The TSA is there to prevent dangerous substances from being smuggled onto a plane in actual operation. They are not there to safeguard a plane that is not in operation. Before it is put into operation again, there should be checks made on it, yes. It should also be locked when not in operation. Both of these are the responsibility of the owner of the plane to carry out, although there is reason to believe the TSA should sweep the plane before passengers are permitted to board.

Since there were no passengers in this situation, and it is unlikely hte plane was to be used any time soon, there would have been no point in wasting money on a sweep of a disused plane, whn the sweep would have to be done again anyway, before passengers were let on board.

Locking the plane is beyond their remit, in the same manner as it is beyond the police’s remit to check you have locked your car before you walk off and leave it.

You don’t have any idea what the TSA does, do you? If you backtrack the link you will find a whole lot more they claim to protect.

“Air travel is an essential part of our daily lives. Over 600 million people fly each year, not to mention the millions bags which go along with them. That’s why most of our efforts are dedicated to ensuring the unthinkable doesn’t happen. We screen every passenger and every bag boarding a commercial aircraft today, including international travelers arriving in the United States before they meet a connecting flight.

Our team of highly trained Security Officers operates at over 700 security checkpoints and nearly 7,000 baggage screening areas each day. We use the latest technology and equipment combined with continually improving screening techniques and our other layers of security to prevent any terrorist or criminal activity.

Every air traveler today is screened by our team using the latest screening techniques to prevent any terrorist or criminal activity.

Every piece of luggage is screened for explosives using the latest technology and equipment before being placed on a plane. Read more.

Our job goes well past security screening. We use multiple layers from screening air cargo to monitoring flight students."

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/screening/index.shtm

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

“Air travel is an essential part of our daily lives. Over 600 million people fly each year, not to mention the millions bags which go along with them. That’s why most of our efforts are dedicated to ensuring the unthinkable doesn’t happen. We screen every passenger and every bag boarding a commercial aircraft today, including international travelers arriving in the United States before they meet a connecting flight.

Yeahm didn’t she already (briefly) say that?

Yes, they are supposed to check the passengers and their bags that go into an airplane that will be in use shortly, they never said anything there about pilots or an empty, not-going-to-be-in-use-soon plane.

Our team of highly trained Security Officers operates at over 700 security checkpoints and nearly 7,000 baggage screening areas each day. We use the latest technology and equipment combined with continually improving screening techniques and our other layers of security to prevent any terrorist or criminal activity.

Photo of a passenger in an airportEvery air traveler today is screened by our team using the latest screening techniques to prevent any terrorist or criminal activity. Learn more.

Wait, why exaclty couldn’t you just cut this out?

Our job goes well past security screening. We use multiple layers from screening air cargo to monitoring flight students. Learn more about what we do to make our transportation systems secure."

Yeah, from what you provided, I didn’t really learn all that much else, other than what Vika said.

 
Flag Post

Tenco, I thought I had edited that, guess I didn’t. You and vika seem to glass over the explosives and going as far as to even check student pilots. You do know they check the empty planes as well and especially if they are about to be boarded. The guy who got on the plane should never have had access to the area. He was not an airlines pilot. Why are you two arguing over this? It is so ridiculous.

Vika, it doesn’t matter if you see the so-called security devices or not, it is still invasive and takes away your privacy and is humiliating. I guess you could make the argument some people like to have their genitals touched by strangers.

 
Flag Post

I stand by my earlier comment, vis ‘security theatre’… but a simple question…

Does the TSA provide perimeter security to all airports?

If YES – they are responsible for allowing someone onto the airport grounds and into an empty plane (in a hangar?).
If NO – they are not responsible for allowing someone onto the airport grounds and into an empty plane.

That aside,

Vika, it doesn’t matter if you see the so-called security devices or not, it is still invasive and takes away your privacy and is humiliating. I guess you could make the argument some people like to have their genitals touched by strangers.

One of the key arguments pro-scanner (which I am not, as you may of already ascertained) is that it obviates the need for a pat down / grope for the 99%* (*yes I picked this number at random) that don’t appear to have anything suspicious obfuscated about their person.

Yes, there will inevitably be some who like having their genitals touched by strangers but if you don’t you can avoid this fate, with high reliability, by not forgetting that ‘suspicious’ packet in your jacket pocket or with absolute reliability by not flying.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

if you start at a neutral 0, and they subtract 10 points with a snap of their finger, and you spend decades winning two or three points back, and this process repeats, you end up losing everything.

That’s not the case here. Unless you are going to pretend your own country has no border security.

It is simply a case of increasing security following on from dramatic and damaging hyjackings of aircraft in flight. The goal is to allow them to continue to have raised security without it affecting us as passengers.

Jhco’s post:

Our job goes well past security screening. We use multiple layers from screening air cargo to monitoring flight students."

It all focusses on screening to ensure the safety of planes in use as transport vehicles. They do not screen empty vehicles not in use. What would be the point? When the vehicle is about to be used, then and only then do they screen it.

You and vika seem to glass over the explosives and going as far as to even check student pilots. You do know they check the empty planes as well and especially if they are about to be boarded.

Bold added to your own post for emphasis, Jhco. Searching for explosives, incendiaries, balistics and chemical weapons are what the normal passenger screening process is for. Same with luggage screening. We did not ‘gloss over’ that at all.

Empty planes are only screened if they are about to be put into use. I have said that several times now, and so have you. They do not screen abandoned planes, or planes on long layovers. It would be a complete and total waste of money to do so, when they are going to be screened thoroughly before passengers are allowed on board.

The guy who got on the plane should never have had access to the area.

That was a failing on the part of normal airport security, and the owners of the plane who failed to secure it during layover. It was not a failing of the transport authority.

Vika, it doesn’t matter if you see the so-called security devices or not, it is still invasive and takes away your privacy and is humiliating.

If you don’t know you are being scanned, it is not humiliating. If you know the scanner abstracts your body, it is not humiliating. You are permitted a private screening if you are that desperate to hide your clothed body.

There are many methods to minimise the loss of privacy, including not giving the officers a photo of your body, but something pre-computed by the machine to show suspicious areas only. I realise it prevents you from concealed-carry on board the aircraft, which you may see as an affront to your rights, Jhco, but that is part of what they are there to do – stop guns getting on board the aircraft.

Originally posted by donseptico:


Yes, there will inevitably be some who like having their genitals touched by strangers but if you don’t you can avoid this fate, with high reliability, by not forgetting that ‘suspicious’ packet in your jacket pocket or with absolute reliability by not flying.

There is no problem with that either. There are some great interaction paradigms that allow normal business meetings and interaction between partners, without physically moving from your own locations. I would be lying, if I said I was not happy to see something of a boon in this area of research.

 
Flag Post

I think you could save more people by investing the money now spend on security on providing heath care (either trough medical research or by simply increasing care). So I think we should spend the money on something else.

 
Flag Post

That’s a very interesting observation there, thijser. Quite so, indeed.
I like it. It shows a thought analogous to the horrid question of: If you could save only one of your children from a burning house, which one would it be & why.

OR, just maybe we need to get our priorities straightened out and do a lot in all areas where real need for public health, security, education, etc. could be of great benefit to our society. Our “greed” so distorts our rational on what is truly important in life. Sad to say.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

I think you could save more people by investing the money now spend on security on providing heath care (either trough medical research or by simply increasing care). So I think we should spend the money on something else.

I’d love the idea that the security scanners automatically send their results to your doctor every time you pass through. They are DICOM compatible after all, so it is doable from a technical point of view. It won’t happen in the states because we are too focussed on ‘immutable constitutional rights’ to think about the advantages such systems can bring to us.

A free basic health check every time you get on a plane for internal or international travel. Not very detailed, but equivalent to a basic CT scan. Added to your medical notes and automatically scanned for medical abnormalities when it arrives at the clinic.

It would be brilliant, but I cannot see it happening somehow. In France, yes. In the US? No.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

I feel their is a misunderstanding of what the TSA is doing. This is not really about safety, it is a bureaucracy of our government, a system bent on controlling it’s people and pushing the envelope to see how far people are willing to allow in the name of safety. As been pointed our earlier by another poster, they have never caught a terrorist. Yet they have shown that people who are afraid will allow their leaders to take advantage of them in the extreme.

Europe seems to have realized the intrusive nature of these scans and probes. My countries history shows that this will not happen here. Our leaders will push this as far as they can, throwing more money at it and coming up with new ways to implement it. another never ending program.

It was mentioned that our leadership doesn’t store this information. I beg to differ.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/broken-promises-body-scanner-stores-35000-pics-100-hit-the-web/

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ColtArmy:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

That’s a very interesting observation there, thijser. Quite so, indeed.
I like it. It shows a thought analogous to the horrid question of: If you could save only one of your children from a burning house, which one would it be & why.

OR, just maybe we need to get our priorities straightened out and do a lot in all areas where real need for public health, security, education, etc. could be of great benefit to our society. Our “greed” so distorts our rational on what is truly important in life. Sad to say.

I have to smile at your posting. It is so telling. I have met people like you many times and I always come away from the meeting shaking my head.

AND, just perhaps they were shaking THEIR heads as YOU went away. AND, I’ve met ppl like YOU many time, also. So? Meeting them would leave me w/ a great sadness in my heart that someone could have the ideology ya display on this forum. I see such ideology as being THE PROBLEM RATHER THAN THE SOLUTION.

And, Neither of us have “met” EVERYONE. But, I’m pretty certain that all of the “need ppl” ARE NOT as YOU are so inclined to believe. I have met many ppl “in TRUE need” that my heart metaphorically did “bleed”. Yeah, there are times that I AM A “BLEEDING HEART”. Ya might add: my eyes well up w/ tears and I’m unable to speak….because of their pain, the unfairness of life, the hatred of ppl (like YOU?) that stops them from getting the help they so desperately need (like Obamacare?).

AND, from the balance of your (PERSONALLY?) insulting post, I can pretty much tell that YOU just might have seen//would see just what ya wanted//want to see. I won’t argue one bit about how there are these “misfits” (as someone called them) in our (ANY?) society. BUT, to judge an entire segment of the population based on the few that stand out,,at least in YOUR mind,,is the quintessential essence of bias & bigotry. OH, also from YOUR post….it’s now pretty clear why I see do many of YOUR posts being deleted.

If ya really wanna point fingers at ppl who want handouts from the govt. & if ya really want to see some heavy damage to society being done,,,,,ya probably are looking the wrong direction. Instead of looking DOWN upon ppl who,,FOR WHATEVER REASON,,are less capable of being (what YOU would call) a productive member of society—try looking UP at the corporation welfare guys.

Here in Wichita, we have a group of investors (out-of-towners) that bought a hotel. The city has a “bed tax” which the revenue goes to pay particular earmarked projects. These asshole “big wigs” are all ready getting huge tax abatements, etc. THEN, they wanted even more and asked city counsel for 75% of that bed tax be given TO THEM.

Talk about “holding out your hand”.
Colt, yes….there are “ills” in all societies. BUT, if one so greatly focuses the negativity of them….they are much more likely to be unable to see the opportunities to be able to solve them. I am a “solution” person….NOT a “hater” of the problem. I see the “problem” as an opportunity to be one of these “people who were living their lives and contributing to society”.

Tell me, what are YOU doing about these societal problems…besides all the bitching about them that I see YOU & jake-o doing on this forum?

Now for the topic.
Wouldn’t it be great if technology could enable a “ray” that would set off explosives (even “unmixed” ones). Have a line of ppl. One-by-one, they step into a chamber—a very heavily reinforced one—and the ray scans them. If they carry explosives…..well ya get the pic. If not, the merely exit the other side of the chamer. A total of 15 seconds.

Something similar for metal objects, step into an “MRI” area….BAM, all metal is “taken away” from the passenger prospect.

I’m all for safety.
BUT, shirley….can’t we find a better way to “get” it?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Wouldn’t it be great if technology could enable a “ray” that would set off explosives (even “unmixed” ones). Have a line of ppl. One-by-one, they step into a chamber—a very heavily reinforced one—and the ray scans them. If they carry explosives…..well ya get the pic. If not, the merely exit the other side of the chamer. A total of 15 seconds.

Something similar for metal objects, step into an “MRI” area….BAM, all metal is “taken away” from the passenger prospect.

Whilst our goals are convergent, I would aim for a different way. I would love a scanning process that is totally invisible to the passengers, so they have no clue when they are being scanned. Then, when something suspicious is detected, use intelligent redirection of horizontal movement patterns to isolate them from other passengers, preferrably before they know what is going on. At that point you can send a couple of officials (or a couple of cheap robots, depending on the nature of the compounds detected) to ask them to ‘come with us’. If they decline, a more forceful pursuasion can be used. If there are no other passengers nearby, it does not matter how violent their response is.

Something similar for metal objects, step into an “MRI” area….BAM, all metal is “taken away” from the passenger prospect.

Unworkable. Great idea, but it won’t just be metal objects outside of their bodies that are pulled. Surgical pins, pacemakers, and even deep brain implants will all be affected by the MRI’s field.

If you come up with a method of limiting the field to the outside of the skin, it means metalic impliments can be safely hidden inside the body. There are some who would hide knives, a grenade, even a small gun, inside their own body by way of various passages.

 
Flag Post

While I like your ideas Vika and Karma and I know they are fictional…I could see these machines being used for ‘other’ purposes…such as eliminating unwanted aquaintances…


-Hey Jimmy, me old chum, I bought you a ticket to Vanuatu! I’ll help you pack as well.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

While I like your ideas Vika and Karma and I know they are fictional…I could see these machines being used for ‘other’ purposes…such as eliminating unwanted aquaintances…

I can’t, to be honest. They’re detection devices only. You still have to act on what the machines detect.

As it is, innocent people coming back from certain countries are routinely caught smuggling drugs into the country. It’s not a fault of the system that the drugs are found, but rather a fault of you, for not checking your luggage before you try to enter the country. You are responsible for everything you bring with you, after all.

In your situation, the action of the ‘chum’ would come out during investigation of the statement. Jimmy would still face charges for drug trafficing, but you would face the same charges for your part in things.

 
Flag Post

I was more adressing the “exploding chamber” that Karma was talking about…of course he was just being comical and I just played along with the idea of ‘planting’ a bomb on a person not liked so much…

But to address you point, I’m going to have to tamper Jimmy’s bags without his knowledge.