I think that Congressman Chaffetz has come up with a reasonable amendment by
having the imaging as a second level security check. If those with artificial
limbs, for whom the imaging is more convenient and/or preferred, had the option
to choose it as a first check, that would be acceptable to me, but I don't like
the thought of imaging as the new security for everyone. I agree that it is an
invasion of privacy. If it could indeed be done on a stick figure or a generic
figure, that would be okay too.
it's an invasion of privacy and if others want to use it they can
Maybe you should go back and study a little bit more history and look at where
extremism has taken countries. Our education system must really be flawed.
addressing 'You know you're extreme'i find myself disagreeing with every
single statement you make.I dont know why an endorsment by the ACLU is a
negative thing. They are an organization which is set up to protect our
constitution. This seems like a noble thing to do considering americans pride
themselves on being the land of the free and the brave. They try to make us
free...aka a good thing.Thats why i appreciate this bill. it is trying to
make us free from unreasonable searches.next statement that is flawed is
the one about extremism. Yes extremism does get us light years ahead. that is
the motivation behind all change in the world. that is why we ended slavery. why
america broke away from england. and why we arent stuck in the dark ages.so now with your comment i can start to like Congressman Chaffetz.
WatchDog i agreed with your last string of comments until you began to get too
nationalistic. The problem is not just people from other countries. That is an
ignorant thought. In america we have the same crime rate as anyother nation
around the world. And most of the terrorist attacks on america has been
performed by its own citizens. So we shoud stop blaming everything on the
'foreigners' because they are just as human as we are.
...when the right gets so extreme that it meets the left extreme. Did you notice
that this bill was endorsed by the ACLU. I've decided extremism doesn't get us
anywhere. Chaffetz is extreme and this bill is a waste of time.
Now, we seem to cower in fear and then as a result of that fear, choose to
harass our citizens - when the threat to which we are responding came from
foreigners who did not belong here in the first place! It amazes me that we can
be so dumb as to believe that harassing our citizens instead of kicking out the
foreigners, ridding ourselves of illegal aliens, holding employers and our
political leaders accountable for their insane behavior, is the obvious solution
to the problem brought upon us by 9/11.If we are not willing to
fight for our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we do deserve to lose them!The problem, people, is NOT our citizens, it is our foreigners!!!!
The comments in this thread tend to ignore the above amendment and its meaning.
The issue is not about nudity, it's not about taking off the kids shoes
either.It is about the fact that we have caved in on fundamental
civil rights given to us by the amendment above. We are under NO obligation to
allow anyone to treat us, as citizens, like suspects - or terrorists.We are under NO MORE threat today than we were before 9/11. Sure, we will
always have the Tim McVey's among us. We intentionally chose to live with those
threats until 9/11.
Our 4th Amendment:"The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
what seems to be lost on many making comments here is what NL is asking for,
that the traveler have the choice. those who had read the article and didn't
just use the headline as a chance to cheap-shot Chaffetz would have seen that
THE TRAVELER HAS THE CHOICE whether or not to go through the nake-u-fier.
Let the person make the choice. I fly 80,000 plus miles a year and have knee and
shoulder replacements. The full body scanner takes only a few minutes and does
not require a pat down. I have no problem with the system, it is my choice to
use it. Why all the fuss the traveler makes the choice.
The TSA has a failure-to-detect rate on weapons of about 35%. Meaning that a
little more than a third of the time when an undercover officer attempts to get
a gun or a knife or a simulated explosive on the plane, he or she succeeds. As
much as I'm sure they'd love some cool new toys, they can first fulfill with a
modicum of competency the important task assigned them, and prove they can
effectively utilize 40 year old technology, and some simple common sense (and a
basic level of courtesy) before we spend a single cent for new toys. Some of
the screeners can't even tell, after all this time, what a quart sized bag is.
And what is the rule on shoes? No one seems to know. Must EVERYONE take off
their shoes every time, or can some not under certain conditions? Why don't the
people charged with enforcement of these pointless rules even undertand them
themselves? Why do we as travellers tolerate this waste that does nothing to
keep us safe?As you can probably tell, I fly regularly.
Consequently, I detest the TSA. Incompetence embodied.
Chaffetz is really afraid that others will see him for the small person with the
big ego he really is.
I fly a lot and if this scanner means that I can leave my shoes, belt and jacket
on, not have to use that disgusting gray tub that doesn't get cleaned - EVER, or
walk on an equally dirty floor to put my shoes back on, while hopping on one
foot, get dressed again, put on my jacket on while keeping track of my purse and
camera/laptop so someone else doesn't grab them, then run to my flight because
the idiot in front of me can't read the instructions before hand, that have been
in place for 7 years, then by ALL means, bring the full body scanner on, let
someone see my image, like they will remember ME! If it gets me through
security faster I'm all for it! Have you been through customs at JFK at 5:00
p.m., what a NIGHMARE, this would be wonderful thing, think you flying people!
Doesn't Chavitz have to take off his shoes like us normal American flying public
I wonder how many commenters criticizing Chaffetz have also posted comments
critical of many of the steps bush took, saying they infringed on our rights.
you can't have it both ways, folks. if chaffetz is a hypocrit for pushing some
security measures but backing off on this one, so are many of those commenters.
I don't see how wiretaps on calls to foreign countries placed by non-citizens is
an infringement of my rights, but making me basically go nude through airport
screening is not.
I see TWO solutions: First, the FAST lane using the new imaging
devices to get through airport security. It is intrusive but quick,
conveinient, and safe? Cost less??Second, the SLOW lane using the
old method with fewer lanes. It worked for 8 years, no need to fix?? Cost
less??Authorities should give passengers these choices and they will
gravitate to the lane of their choosing. I think that is the
desired outcome. Effective and cost effective security checks. And less money
to operate too???Run a pilot test program to find out the people's
Hey. Good idea "Disgusted"! Why not stick figures? Seems like a great
solution. Knock Knock, Is anybody home, TSA?
You are one of those freaks that enjoys spreading lies about others. You
justify it to yourself and others by inserting a tiny fragment of truth, but
you've altered it to the point it is just an assault on another persons
character. Shut up.
"invading my privacy does not protect anyone"Well actually it does."To stand for decency and good moral judgement is always a good thing"Where was this arguement when we tortured for safety.
Personally, I feel sorry for the TSA agent in the room reviewing the images.
Darn few of those images would be pleasant to look at. The images are not saved
and there is no way to identify them. I hope the Senate has more sense.
This was the closest I was going to get posing nude. I am disappointed. Now only
my wife will get to see me naked, sorry world.
I'm fine with the purpose behind it (I appreciate airport safety), but I'm with
Disgusted @8:35. Why show detailed images of our naked bodies instead of stick
figures? Men already stare at my chest with clothes on which isn't flattering.
I can only imagine what the nasty airport guy is doing in that back room. If I
wanted everyone in the airport to see what I looked like without clothes on, I'd
just walk through the line naked and save everyone the trouble.
Invading my privacy does not protect anyone. To stand for decency and good moral
judgment is always a good thing.
I have 2 artificial hips and would welcome a simpler screening method. As I
understand the scanning process, it's very impersonal, and the TSA worker
viewing the scan is in a separate room and does not see the person being
screened. I would have no objection at all.
A win for decency doesn't matter a whole lot when a plane blows up does it.
Of course, Superman with his X-ray vision would be exempted, wouldn't he?
Rep. Chaffetz used good common sense with this bill. Full body scanning as the
first-line is indeed an invasion of privacy. Secondary or Tertiary would
be a more appropiate application.
A win for decency. Thank you, Chaffetz!
We can torture for our safety, he wants to kick out the Mexicans for our safety
but please, please don't look at me "naked". It's fine when it's used for those
other people. I'm surprised he didn't suggest it be used in all the other
counties except America.
I can't figure out why these machine have to show a body image. If something is
detected, why can't it be displayed on a stick figure? This technology and the
programmers are as dumb as rocks. I'm a programmer and could solve this problem
inside of a week.
TSA is another BIG-government spending sham. Their sole purpose is to instill
the traveler with a false sense of security. If a terrorist really
wants to blow up, high-jack, or commandeer an airplane...this machine will not
stop them.It is only for calming Joe-Q-public.--------------------"It's all about the economy, stupid!" - Jim
Chaffetz. This is the right balance of safety and privacy rights.
I travel through Moscow, Russia, often and they have these scanning machines and
they are great! There used to be long lines to get out to the airplanes and now
there is very little delay. No removing shoes or anything. I am sure the
technician monitoring the machine does not care about seeing someone "naked".
Preserve a line for me to be scanned in the US.
This is the right answer. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. There are
other methods that will and do work.Congratulations Rep. Chaffetz.
You just showed you don't have to be there 12 years to get something done.
I'm so glad that I have the option NOT to go through this machine. It sounds to
me like a win win situation for everybody.
The representative is wrong on this issue. The reason for screening is to detect
hazards being carried by terrorists and not to inconvenience the everyday
traveler. So we finally have a device that can do just that, only to hold it off
the market for fear that someone will expose their body contour to TSA employee
trained to read such images. The same reasoning would limit whole
body scanning in health clinics where a physical image is actually saved and
printed. Are we afraid that some sleazy technician might distribute such images
or look at them in an unseemly way? Where will Rep Chavitz stand
when it's revealed that a repeat 9-11 disaster could have been averted if we
only had used the equipment designed as a result after years of research and
millions dollars? Please, let's use the technology available before
we regret the consequences.
Isn't Chaffetz the guy that said we need to get rid of all illegal immigrants-
even putting them in concentration camps- oh sorry Tent cities- in order to
protect our borders?Now along comes something that keeps our country safe
but has a direct impact on his life he is against it?Sounds like someone
doesn't want his personal space invaded but doesn't mind racial profiling people
and locking them up in inhuman ways.