Sadly, I think its a bit late for that.. most American's will allow anything if the government tells them they or their children will be safer as a result.... you can have freedom or safety, not both, seems to be the argument...
if we worried about the potential for abuse we would never get anything new. nothing is 100% perfect but I think the pros out weight the cons here. Scanning will be a fast, accurate way to get people through security. In the end people will take the convenience of it over any potential abuse risks.
Pat down Anyone who cares to make a statement about this can choose the pat down, it seems. No one but themselves will notice, or care, but you preserve your personal dignity when you exercise choice, no matter what your choice is. From that standpoint it hardly matters whether 4bidden says, "All right, have a look," or I say, "All right, have a feel." By making the choice, when offered one, we preserve our dignity by saying, I know you're going to do this to me, but I will chose how it's done.
I think if they could improve it to the point where a computer could do all of the looking so that humans would only be involved for secondary checks people would feel more comfortable with it. I would think a computer would be able to look for inconsistancies and non-anatomical shapes well enough or better than a tired/bored human could in any case given the right programming... but I still think man's best friend is the better cheaper option here... This of' course ignores the potential heath concerns that some people are worried about with the x-ray type machines....
The very first time I was "patted down" was in 1972 at Schiphol in Amsterdam. She was 5'10", carried a very authoritarian H&K sidearm and was drop-dead gorgeous. At the age I was in 1972, she could have patted me down all day. Last year I was wanded by an equally attractive and equally well-armed young woman at HAJ in Hannover. Alas, she let the electronics do the job and never put a hand on me. How times have changed.
A flight that originates in Cancun could be tampered with. How much money do the security checkpoint people at the Cancun airport make? They make $4500 MXP per month. At today's mid-market xrate that's $350 USD per month. They work 6 days a week. And there's really high turnover in those positions. People HATE working there. Do you seriously think you couldn't pay one of these people off so they would look the other way when you come through? And what about the people who clean the airplanes between flights? They make less than the security checkpoint people make. And these are the people who are on the planes between flights. So go ahead and scan all you want, but flights full of returning US citizens enter the US all the time from places that simply don't pay airport personnel enough to have proper security.
Good Point RG! The same ones who look the other way when drugs come thru could just as easily ignore the bomb or think its just another drug shipment............... If you really think about it the "terrorists" must not be trying very hard given the numerous ways that a plane could be taken down especially with access provided by underpaid or threatened employees as RG said. ie:"hey you, put this under seat 2A its full of weed and heres $200 for you if you don't do it I'll get your family" except its not a box of weed!! ... scary to think how easy it would be! & FYI this could again be prevented by man's best friend doing a 5 minute pre-takeoff inspection of the planes.
The Cancun airport does have drug sniffing dogs all over the place, well it has them and they work full time. Not sure if they board planes, but I'm sure they are cleared to access all areas of the airport. I just finished reading a trashy novel wherein some people thought they were smuggling drugs into the US, but it was actually anthrax with drugs for cover. So the terrorists duped some idiots into smuggling what they thought were drugs. In the book, though, it didn't work... Then there was that time that a Saudi prince and his entire entourage landed in Cancun, in a private plane, and some humvees went out on the tarmac and took everyone to the hotel. No crossing INM, no crossing through Customs, just straight to the hotel. In that case someone bought their way onto the tarmac and that was all it took for a small plane load of people enter the country without inspection. There were repercussions to this, INM mobilized and got agents ready to go raid the hotel...and then, suddenly, that raid was called off. And the rumor mill started up with how much the bribe was... Life - I think you are right, there are holes in security in every country. And international air travel makes countries vulnerable to the security lapses in other countries. If someone is determined to do something horrible, they will figure out how to. And a body scan isn't going to get in the way, imho. Fortunately very, very, very few people actually want to commit acts of terrorism.
Life wrote: I would not like getting blown out of the sky, so I can accept more inconvenience; but, on the general theme of being protected by the government, you can point to areas where more is needed- I give you food and drug safety, or protection from substances that can harm us. What these have got in common is that they can pose risks that we are not capable of evaluating; or, pose risks hidden from our consideration, all together. It's in those areas where the risk is more easily seen, and appreciated, where things start to get laughable. One of the things I liked about being in developing countries was the lack of overt protection: you could go into a park and approach a drop off with nary a guardrail or sign warning to go no further. It was nice being able to choose for myself.
A good eye Mixz1 wrote: I can just see the scene, Mixz1, with her saying, "Sir, sir, you can move on, now!" Aesthetic appreciation never dies, no matter what the age.... Enjoy.
