President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

Mon, Nov 22nd 2010 7:19am — Mike Masnick

As the whole mess with the TSA scanners has received a lot more attention in the last week or so, a few folks are noticing that ex-Homeland Security boss Michael Chertoff, who's been quite busy defending the naked scanners, happens to be making a ton of money from one of the main ones, Rapiscan, made by OSI, a client of Chertoff's consulting firm. Of course, similar concerns were brought up a year ago when Chertoff was busy promoting the scanners, but it appears that many in the mainstream press continue to highlight his old Homeland Security title, while downplaying his current role making money from seeing those scanners sold.

However, perhaps even more interesting is the news that President Obama was finally asked to address the whole thing this weekend, and (not surprisingly) defended the scans and the pat downs as "the only [procedures] right now that [the TSA] considers to be effective," to prevent terrorism (while also admitting that he doesn't have to go through security to get on airplanes, so he hasn't experienced the scans.

No surprise there. Of course, what he didn't mention is that he just got done traveling with the CEO of OSI, the parent company of Rapiscan, the makers of the main naked scanner that is being purchased and put into all these airports. Apparently, OSI CEO, Deepak Chopra (no, not the new agey guy), "was selected to accompany US President, Barack Obama, to Mumbai and attended the US India Business Entrepreneurship meeting..."

Now, of course, all of this may be perfectly legit and reasonable. There may be plenty of reasons why all of these things happened. Chertoff and Obama may really believe these scanners are the best way to protect us. But, as Larry Lessig has been fond of pointing out lately with his anti-corruption project, it's these kinds of "connections" that make the American public lose trust in their government, since it can certainly be read in a rather corrupt manner.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: obama, scans, tsa
Companies: osi, rapiscan

85 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 6:28am

Oh, that's just not SMART.
Great move! "We're buying these things from that company I know does these things REAL well!"

OH, and I was given $30mil in campaign contributions whilst we're at it. Colour me unsurprised when the contributions come rolling in to the Dems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yogi, 22 Nov 2010 @ 7:32am

Chicago
Obama is a Chicago politician so no surprise here at all. Really, its just a matter of time before this fool gets impeached.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gumnos (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 7:39am

Dateline Washington, D.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Transportation Security Administration announces its recent partnership with the Roman Catholic Church. Beginning in time for the Christmas travel season, the Vatican will supply additional staff to perform pat-down searches and monitor the full-body scanners.

A small but vocal minority of fliers have expressed concern regarding the program. TSA spokesman Dick Tickle dismisses the opposition as an aggrieved minority, stating that the financial savings and increased security benefit taxpayers and travellers alike.

"My co-workers and I are uncomfortable with the intimate nature of the pat-down searches required for those who opt out of the full-body scannings," notes TSA agent Willie G. Roper. "The priests don't seem to object, the people trust them, and they reportedly bring years of experience with them."

Father John Geoghan eagerly looks forward to helping secure America's transportation network. "I've seen the images produced by the backscatter/millimeter-wave systems, and there's no hiding anything."

Given the expected success of the new program, Tickle hints that the agency plans to extend its subcontracting relationships, starting with state correctional institutions. "A number of parolees and work-release prisoners have a difficult time finding jobs because of their record. In some cases, their names will appear on the sex-offender registry for the rest of their life. We offer them hope at reintegrating into society while making travel safer."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ISolve, 22 Nov 2010 @ 7:55am

Scanners
Folks stop your whining. Accept the fact that there are people who are trying to kill Americans. What is your solution? Should we only pat-down people who look like they could be a killer? This is not a political issues. Stop trying to make it one. This is about safety. If you don't want to accept the security measures imposed by TSA don't travel by airplane. Our security is soft compared to other countries. If you traveled you would know that. Also, stop the Obama crap. Either you want security or you don't. If you do, accept the reality or keep your butt at home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 7:55am

Re: Dateline Washington, D.C.
Is that an Onion article? If you actually wrote that up yourself, you have a career ahead of you....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 7:59am

Well you can be sure that didn't promote American Jobs. How much did the CEO donate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gumnos (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:04am

Re: Dateline Washington, D.C.
Yes, it's my authorship. Just a little personal venting on the matter. Feel free to do whatever with it :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:07am

Re: Scanners
"Folks stop your whining."

No. And this isn't whining, it's angry shouting....

"Accept the fact that there are people who are trying to kill Americans."

Meh. Big deal. When hasn't there been?

"What is your solution? Should we only pat-down people who look like they could be a killer? This is not a political issues."

....you're kidding me, right? If you don't see how govt. is using fear for political, and more importantly business gains, then you're beyond help.

"This is about safety."

....Right.

"If you don't want to accept the security measures imposed by TSA don't travel by airplane."

This is a RIGHTS issue, you dolt. The TSA is a govt. entity restricting the ability of innocent citizens to travel as they please. Govt. ain't supposed to do that....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:10am

So...how's all that hope and change working out for you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bishboria (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:12am

The Geffen Effect
In the same vein as The Streisand Effect, this sounds similar to what what with David Geffen and Peter Mandelson.

I'm calling this concept The Geffen Effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bishboria (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:13am

Re: The Geffen Effect
*"what what" -> "what happened"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz, 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:14am

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

- Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:19am

Re: Chicago
Could signing ACTA be enough for him to be impeached? It does violate the constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:19am

Re: Re: The Geffen Effect
*"what what" -> "In the butt"
FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Planespotter (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:23am

Re: Scanners
Ok dokes.. if it is about safety why isn't everyone forced to go through the scanner rather than pull out people at random? Why do most people walk through the magnetic scanner or get wanded (sp?)?

This has nothing to do with safety, it is about lining the pockets of big business who just happen to contribute cash to political campaigns and have CEO's who fly around the world with the President.

Since 9/11 the US has become paranoid about airplanes... to be honest any self respecting terrorist should move his target from the plane to the airport, shutting down JFK or one of the big international hubs would cost millions in lost revenue and also seriously knock the US who have this thing about being "attacked on home soil"...

As a Brit who's used to having terrorists (funded by lovely US citizens) blow up his country I'm quite used to it, as well as the Londoners who went about their normal business after teh terrorist attacks in London. You've already lost the war on terror, look at what you are doing to your own people in the name of "security".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Howard the Duck (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:24am

Re: Scanners
Right on, Isolve. I agree. Whiners the lot of 'em.
Watch out, they'll complain about your sentence structure and the evil empire until their butts implode from vacuum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skippy T. Mut, 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:30am

Lets not forget...
...that if someone were to touch the President the way these TSA pedophiles are touching everyone else they'd be shot by secret service agents within seconds!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:33am

Re: Scanners
Folks stop your whining. Accept the fact that there are people who are trying to kill Americans.

Their purpose is not to kill Americans - Killing Americans is the means towards their true purpose - which is to terrorise America into giving up its historic liberties.

By adopting these aggressive security measures we are fulfilling their true purpose just fine.

What is your solution?

If we really want to frustrate them we should give up all the obtrusive security and impose a publicity blackout on terrorist attacks. What we have to do is to deny them the oxygen of publicity.

Frankly the risk from terrorism is tiny. It is less than one hundredth the risk from ordinary criminal murder, one thousandth the risk from ordinary accidents (including road accidents) and one millionth the risk from disease.

Sixty years ago the country from which I write this was attacked on a nightly basis by 60,000 well funded German terrorists, armed with the latest military resources of a major state. Even this level of attack did not break the spirit of the people or stop the nation from functioning.

Anyone who thinks that these pathetic modern terrorists can have any significant direct military effect on a modern western nation need their head examining.

Frankly the terrorists would be better advised to spend their resources trying to de-stabilise the financial markets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:38am

Re: Scanners
What security does it give you? a FALSE sense of security, that's what!
The TSA has so far only reacted to terrorist acts, and hasn't stopped a single one of them.

Oh someone hijacked our planes with boxcutters, hand in your nail clippers and other sharp objects.
Oh someone tried to explode a plane using a liquid concoction, hand in your water bottles and other liquids are limited to 3oz.
Oh someone lit his underpants on fire, better do a naked scan.

That's the TSA! Security Theatre: "Look, we're doing something aginst them terrists!"

Next time there will be a moron that hides a bomb in his ass, then we'll have mandatory cavity searches at the airports.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:40am

Re: Re: Scanners
Addendum:
Guess what, the terrorists have won, as you Americans are so eager to put aside your freedoms to protect... well protect what exactly? The US isn't the freedom loving country it once was. It certainly doesn't give you security!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:44am

Re: Scanners
"Accept the fact that there are people who are trying to kill Americans."

Oh? And what did you suppose we Americans were thinking this was all about? Corrupt politicians in Washington making a ton of dough on "terrorism"?? Nawww...

Yeah, our security is soft compared to Israel. Every been through Ben-Gurion? No naked scanner machines. And yet very effective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:47am

Re: Scanners
"here are people who are trying to kill Americans" -- And many of them are in Langley, Virginia, and Washington DC. I don't at all accept the fear you try to induce. It's an observable fact that one's own gov't is *always* the biggest threat to life and liberty. The gov't acts in broad daylight, and is prepared to shoot you for going 5MPH over an arbitrary speed limit. The alleged "terrorists" -- all you claim is merely what the gov't story has put out -- have thus far, by the palsied reaction of fearful little weenies, gotten the US involved in two wars against peoples who didn't attack us, and are trying to start 3rd, 4th, and 5th fronts in Pakistan, Yemen, and Iran, to fuel the military machine.

No, I don't want the security of a prison, or to degrade to the level of "other countries", police states such as China or Israel. Way to prevent the small number of real terrorists -- offhand I can't recall any, the FBI always seems to be central to those exposed -- is to STAY THE HELL OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S COUNTRIES, instead of spend a trillion dollars murdering upwards of a million of them. -- IN FACT, it's amazing that real terrorism ISN'T being seen here, by which I deduce that those who are being terrorized by the US military have decided not to fall into the trap of hitting back in that way, just against US military in *their* country. Against any other invader, we'd cheer those "insurgents" as "freedom fighters", but the rabid right has so twisted the facts and opinions with their constant fear-mongering that even the lessons of Vietnam have been forgotten.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bishboria (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:03am

Re: Re: Re: The Geffen Effect
LOL never even noticed that! :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:05am

Re: Re: Scanners
"This is a RIGHTS issue, you dolt. The TSA is a govt. entity restricting the ability of innocent citizens to travel as they please. Govt. ain't supposed to do that...."

I'm with DH on 99.99% of his posts around here... but I do want to point out one thing with this statement: we're not... or, I guess, 'I'm not'... arguing about the freedom of travel. I still hold that we have no protected right to fly if no one wants to fly us. If airports are putting in security measures to protect themselves and their customers, and you receiving their services is dependent upon complying, that's their business decision. Don�t like it? Find a competitor who treats their customers better.

What I'M arguing is the unlawful & unconstitutional searching being done by agents of the federal government.

DH, I�m with you on the fact that this is wrong� but I didn�t agree with the �right to travel as we please� part. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:06am

Re: Dateline Washington, D.C.
>Applauseapplesauce
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:07am

Re: Re: Dateline Washington, D.C.
oookaaay... that was supposed to be:

~applause~

or ~applesauce~ if you prefer.

I guess I should be careful with the HTML symbols even in 'plain text'. :/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:14am

Says it all really
) defended the scans and the pat downs as "the only [procedures] right now that [the TSA] considers to be effective,"
So... clearly he really went out of his way to solicit a wide and informed input on the whole thing, considering every possible viewpoint and opinion in conjunction with experts in the field to form a full and balanced opinion in touch with.....

Oops sorry - bullsh*t generator broke at that point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:14am

Re: Scanners
ISolve... How many terrorists have the TSA caught with these scanners and pat downs? NONE. Did you noticed the terrorists now would rather blow a plane up with cargo then people? This isn't about security it's about government control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Understand Americanos, 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:16am

Rapiscan??
Is the company really named Rapiscan.A scanner that sees you naked, made by a company named Rapiscan,and evy\eryone thought that would be a good name. Are they actually using their brains?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:17am

Naked
I won't feel save until everyone flies naked. That way I can see for myself their not carrying a bomb/weapon. Even with the naked flying, a full body cavity search must administered before boarding. Feel safe yet?

Where's the line?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:19am

Re: Re: Re: Scanners
"DH, I�m with you on the fact that this is wrong� but I didn�t agree with the �right to travel as we please� part. :)"

Don't think I ever argued that we have a "right to travel". What I AM arguing is that the govt. has no right to restrict our movement, and that is all they are doing here. If the airliners want this stuff in, that's one thing. These are govt. employees administering these procedures...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Theodore, 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:21am

Obama stands behind Total Sexual Access
Nude pics or getting groped. Take your pick, terrorists. And by terrorists, the feds mean everyone flying airplanes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:38am

"what he didn't mention is that he just got done traveling with the CEO of OSI, the parent company of Rapiscan, the makers of the main naked scanner that is being purchased and put into all these airports. "

Amazing how the MSM never mentions this, despite the fact that they're supposed to be the "investigative journalists."

Almost makes you think these people have an agenda.

These people are corrupt. Almost the only politician that actually cares about the public interest is Ron Paul, which is why he doesn't get much in campaign contributions from big corporations and hence was never elected president.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
And I'm with you on that part too... the government should never impose into private business like that... like they should never have imposed a law to require businesses to make themselves non-smoking establishments.

I was harking back to an older 'rights to travel' argument that brewed a while back concerning whether or not the right to freely travel was implicitly granted by the constitution. And I wanted to keep the unlawful-search part of this in the foreground too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Nobody has to provide us an airplane, but this is the government restricting travel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:50am

Re: Re: Re: The Geffen Effect
Damn! I went to lunch before I could post that! Grrr. Beat me to it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:51am

Convincing evidence
I'm sure Chopra showed Obama some nice scan porn during the trip. That must have converted him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:52am

Re: Scanners
I'd just like to point out here that the TSA is responsible for more than just airplanes. They handle security for all form of public transportation, such as trains, subways, and buses. You walk through a metal detector to get on these. There are no pat downs unless repeated attempts to pass a metal detector occur and a wand test is failed (The old airport standard). People are scared because a plane is a high profile target. That doesn't make it right to force people to give up their right to privacy because a terrorist may use it as a weapon. Truth be told, a subway would probably make a much better target. There could possibly be thousands of people in one place and it would ruin the infrastructure of the area. But killing people isn't necessarily a terrorist�s goal. Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violence to achieve a goal (Dictionary.com). Take it for what you want, but a school yard bully is a terrorist. Regardless, we have the right to privacy. The military has even said that new recruits have the right to a personal space. It is unacceptable that the average person should be subjected to criminal like security screenings because of a threat of terrorism. If you want to make planes safer, make the cockpit bullet proof and securable only from the inside. Then require it to be secured before passengers board and only opened when passengers have disembarked. There are many alternatives to invasive pat downs and millimeter or x-ray scanners. These technologies haven�t even really been proven to be safe for humans, even though the FDA says it is. The FDA has made numerous mistakes that have cost thousands of peoples� lives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:55am

Re: Re: Scanners
Are you referring to East German Stasi operations?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:55am

Re: Re: Scanners
And since starting my post a dozen people have shown up before me. Now I feel like a jackass for reposting the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mushatsu (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:58am

Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Also, I didn't realize that another poster had already taken the name Richard. I appologize. I will now be Mushatsu.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:00am

Re: Rapiscan??
It's supposed to be pronounced like a combination of "rapid" and "scan", but yeah I always think of it as Rape-i-scan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:00am

Re: Rapiscan??
And yes, it was incredibly stupid of them not to see that coming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:11am

Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Um, don't you see "us Americans" here complaining about what our "GOVERNMENT" is doing to us? It isn't what we, the MAJORITY wants, it is what a few people in high places are imposing on us. Some of us, mostly those on the left, are against this. The group that yells the loudest about us losing our rights is the same group taking them away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ac, 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:14am

family
I wonder if the President has really stopped to consider how he might feel if his daughters had to fly commercial? Does he really want them getting the porno scan or being groped by a TSA goon? I suppose he'll never have to worry about that though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iNtrigued (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Scanners
I completely agree with your first half, but fail to see your logic in the second half.

First off, that little jab about the terrorist being funded by "lovely US citizens" was in bad taste. Second, no country should be OK with being attacked on their own soil. It's one thing to be tough about being attacked, but to not be bothered by it is just insanity.

And as far as the "war on terror" goes, if you have been listening to Obama, the US has stopped fighting that war since about his fourth day in office. Now the US is in a "war on al Qaeda".

You should probably be a little less concerned about how citizens should be treated in the US and focus on your own homeland. Britain is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, nanny state of them all. Maybe you should be more focused on how your country is treating its citizens and stop being so judgmental about other nations' actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:28am

Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Are you referring to East German Stasi operations?
No, the Luftwaffe in WW2
[ link to this | view in thread ]
snatchmo, 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:32am

Re: Re: Scanners
"...The TSA is a govt. entity restricting the ability of innocent citizens to travel as they please"

And who told you that you are the arbiter for how innocent civilians please to travel? Personally, I prefer DHS's interpretation to yours
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Planespotter (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Oh I am concerned by my own country and am active in all manner of activities questioning my own government and it's actions.

Regarding my little jab, maybe it was in bad taste, but 100% accurate. Lots of dollar bills made its way to the Emerald Isle during the "Troubles"... and I've seen first hand what that money helped pay for.

The War on Terror / The War on Al-Qaeda... semantics mate, thats all... same thing, unless Al-Qaeda have moved into the flower delivery business?

The point still stands... What have you gained from all of this? Security? I don't think so....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iNtrigued (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:07am

First Family
A few others have touched on this already but if Obama is so OK with their methods, why not lead by example?

I say just to show everyone how reasonable these methods are, the entire First Family should proceed through these scanners followed by being fondled by the TSA agents. I am sure he will be completely fine with this, since after all, these are the only effective ways of finding terrorists...

...Riiiight.

On a side note, shouldn't it bother EVERYBODY that there is a government issued scanner that must delete the scanned images from fear of said pornographic images being released? Doesn't that alone scream "somethings not right!" or at least quietly whisper "rut-ro". Why even scan such sensitive images?

If you say "security", I call BnllSh!t!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
javabri, 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:23am

Re: Scanners
That's BS. Even with the increase activity in terrorism, flying is still the safest form of travel. I am an active, frequent flyer, traveling over 100K miles a year both domestic and international. I absolutely understand the risks of air travel and want to ensure my safety when flying. However, these new procedures are way too excessive and expensive. There are better ways to ensure the safety of the flying public.

We are forcing greater than 99.99% of the population to undergo humiliating procedures when there is 0 indication they have done anything wrong. At minimum this should qualify as illegal search and siezure, but the govt. continues to trample on our citizens rights.

Under any other cirucumstances this would be invasion of privacy at the least and criminal sexual harrasment or worse. If you tried any of this on your own, you would certainly be arrested, but the government can do it in the name of "safety".

As stated, there are better, more effective ways to catch the real threats without feeling up innocent flyers or taking naked pictures of them via these full body scanners.

Heck, trained police professionals with trained dogs could be very effective and produce a greater intimidation factor to those that would do us harm. Sniffer systems have proven effective in catching trace particles of explosives and drugs. Better sensitivity metal detectors combined with other methods could ensure safety without undue burden on the flying population nor invading their privacy.

By the way, the greater threat is from foriegn travel into the US, not domestic travel. With the exception of 9/11, most of the threats via air came from OUTSIDE THE US. Hmm, where do we need greater security again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:24am

Obama can stop the groping of Americans if wanted to...
but he won't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iNtrigued (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
"Oh I am concerned by my own country and am active in all manner of activities questioning my own government and it's actions."

Glad to hear that.

"Regarding my little jab, maybe it was in bad taste, but 100% accurate."

I never doubted its accuracy, just thought it was unnecessary.

"The War on Terror / The War on Al-Qaeda... semantics mate, thats all..."

I actually completely agree with you on this one. This was my subtle jab at the President for playing the semantics game.

"The point still stands... What have you gained from all of this? Security? I don't think so...."

Again, completely agree. We gain nothing from this kind of unadulterated invasion into personal privacy and space. We only lose. Hence the thunderous outcry against these measures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mattarse (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:40am

Re: Re: Re: Scanners
"Don�t like it? Find a competitor who treats their customers better."

Unfortunately airlines are not currently allowed to perform there own security - hence you cannot find a competitor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
I'm against them, but please don't turn this into a left/right issue. I hate both ends of the political spectrum because of the morons that have shown up on both sides, and I don't want the scanners either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Howard the Duck (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: Re: Dateline Washington, D.C.
I'm starting to like you Gabe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
"Unfortunately airlines are not currently allowed to perform there own security - hence you cannot find a competitor."
I used to think this too, but then I started seeing articles like this one: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/149748

Do a Google search for "airports not required to use TSA" or something similar. You'd be surprised how many results there are!

It's going to be interesting to see the outcome of this. First step in smacking the TSA back down? Maybe!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCX2, 22 Nov 2010 @ 11:57am

Lies
Obama "defended the scans and the pat downs as 'the only [procedures] right now that [the TSA] considers to be effective,'"

Except that it's all a pack of lies. The shoe bomber and underwear bomber both flew in from foreign airports. Naked scanners and grope-downs wouldn't have done anything to prevent either of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:01pm

Re: Scanners
I traveled the world, and the most intrusive security in the world is the American one.

Damn did you ever got to an American embassy?
In London a child can't open the door to enter because it has a door with bomb proof glass that is almost a yard in depth(not kidding), the first time I saw that it got me by surprise, I also forgot my cellphone at the entrance where we were told to leave it there, no electronics inside the embassy.

But you didn't see those things right?

This is not about security is about the impression of security. They didn't do a pat-down before because they didn't felt it was necessary, they do it know to force people to go through a machine, but the machine is not perfect either, will they do cavity searches on people too, since terrorists can use those cavities to hide things?

Experts said they can fool the machines why are the security not listening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Scanners
There is that right that nobody can interfere with the right to come and go no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Ah, OK, well 60 years ago 1950, so I was wondering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Scanners
I believes his point is that there should be NO arbiter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 1:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Exactly....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eugene (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 1:41pm

Re: Dateline Washington, D.C.
And you win the internet today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tony, 22 Nov 2010 @ 1:50pm

Re: Scanners
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I believe 'Isolve' falls into the 'deserve neither Liberty nor Safety' bucket
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joey, 22 Nov 2010 @ 3:12pm

The entire "mainstream media" is owned and/or controlled by a total of 5 individuals/familes

welcome to the fascist republican state of too big to fail monopolies that now control the "news"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
libertyguy, 22 Nov 2010 @ 3:45pm

Re: Re: Scanners
Kudos, Dark Helmet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 22 Nov 2010 @ 5:13pm

Re: Re: Scanners
Right on, Isolve & Howard the Duck - Whiners the lot of 'em.
Next thing you know they will be bitching about the urinalysis and body cavity searchs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2010 @ 8:50pm

Re:
Hang on now, over in the COICA thread everyone's complaining about how the Democrats are the facists, and only the Republicans can save us from them! It's almost like it's all meaningless partisan bickering...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
villa javea, 22 Nov 2010 @ 9:19pm

Obama is a Chicago politician so no surprise here at all. Really, its just a matter of time before this fool gets impeached.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 1:20am

Re: Re:
It's almost like it's all meaningless partisan bickering...
Or perhaps people just agree with the late Douglas Adams?
"No one actually capable of getting themselves elected should on any account be allowed any power whatsoever"
I know I do....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 1:36am

Re: Re: Scanners
Righ in one, Dark Helmet. There have ALWAYS been people trying to kill Americans.... that is not a good enough reason to give up our Constitutional and human right to not be treated as a criminal without reasonable suspicion or proof.

It's time to stop saying that these things are necessary to 'protect Americans'. 9/11 [b]WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED[/b] if Bushie the Dunce Boy would have allowed the FBI to pursue the 9/11 hijackers six MONTHS before 9/11, when they first came to the attention of the FBI because they were learning to FLY planes but not how to take off nor land them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 1:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Dark Helmet, I will argue that we do have a right to travel as we wish, especially considering that we are PAYING for the means in question.

It is a HUMAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to move around this country USING THE MEANS THAT WE WISH, without being treated as a criminal or potential criminal.

If we allow them to do this bullcrap in airlines, what is to stop them from doing it on buses? On cruise ships? ON YOU WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING YOUR OWN PERSONALLY OWNED CAR!

No, these things are not necessary, and a better thing to protect Americans would be to do BEHAVIORAL and FACIAL RECOGNITION screening. After all, 99% of the 'terrorists' that have tried to get on planes to bomb them have been KNOWN to the FBI or another organization.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 1:42am

Re: Re: Scanners
Smart man.... unfortunately, a lot of Americans are too chicken-livered today to take that to heart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 1:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Actually, I have reasons to believe that no, it's not what the majority wants (it's what they should want, but that's another question).
Most people are just going through this checkpoint without asking any questions. And there are even people who say that they are sick and tired of those people who complain about their civil rights...
Sadly, it's only a vocal minority taking up this case. :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 4:08am

Will someone please think of the children? I'm fairly certain we'll hear about some kind of sexual abuse of children by the end of the month.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 23 Nov 2010 @ 7:48am

Sincerely, Chertoff
"Sincerity is a much overrated virtue. We are all capable of persuading ourselves that what is good for us is good for the country."
-Milton Friedman, Free to Choose
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 7:58am

Re: Sincerely, Chertoff
Milton Friedman was an economist. In the book that quote is taken from, he was talking about Free Market and special interests. He wasn't talking about constitutional rights or government intervention into privacy.

Specifically, he was talking about a hypothetical situation where the steel industry appeals to the government for subsidization on grounds of national security due to all steel being cheaper from over-seas.

Please don't quote out of context.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 23 Nov 2010 @ 8:13am

Re: Re: Re:
There's definitely merit to that concept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 8:19am

Re: Sincerely, Chertoff
Sincerity is a much overrated virtue.
Really? Is that why there's so little of it in governments? By implication does that make objective observation and quantifiable metrics overrated also?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 23 Nov 2010 @ 8:22am

Re:
Here's a funny video about that: Obama Goes Through Naked TSA Airport Scanner http://bit.ly/dbnxvQ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2010 @ 4:54pm

Re: Naked
Even with the naked flying, a full body cavity search must administered before boarding. Feel safe yet?
But, wait! What if some nasty person injects themselves with a chemical that will make them explode??? A cavity search would never reveal that! I say we go for mandatory blood tests, urinalysis, and full cardiovascular screening during a minimum 2 week wait where they have to show up to the airport every day to have their GPS tracking tag tested and to check DNA, fingerprint, retina, heartbeat pattern and gait analysis, all of which should be stored and monitored just to ensure it's the same person gets on the plane. THAT'll make us all safe from those terrorists... they're EVERYWHERE you know? IF WE DON'T MAKE IT SAFE NOW EVERY SINGLE PLANE WILL BE BLOWN FROM THE SKY WITH LITTLE CHILDREN ON BOARD THINK OF THE CHILDREN PLEASE.

*pauses and goes to fetch bucket and mop* Uh... whaddaya think? Too far maybe? or... (DUN, DUN, DUUUUHHHH) not far enough?
well.... you started it :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 25 Nov 2010 @ 1:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
Ah, OK, well 60 years ago 1950, so I was wondering.

Gosh doesn't time fly, it used to be 60 years ago - now I guess it's 70..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 25 Nov 2010 @ 8:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
I know, it gets away from you. Speaking approximately, the Korean war was 60 years ago, Vietnam was 50, and the first Persian Gulf war was 20. Wow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 3 Dec 2010 @ 6:56pm

Dont let facts get in the way of hating Obama
Justso you know, Rapiscan got the first of a long, long line of contracts to build these scanners back in 2005.

But for sure dont let that stop you from implying that Obama was bribed into buying them. dont let a little thing like the facts get in the way.
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/fullarticle.asp?newsid=63
[ link to this | view in thread ]