Underwear Invention Protects Privacy At Airport 325
Thanks to Jeff Buske you don't have to be embarrassed while going through the full body scanners at the airport. Buske has invented radiation shielding underwear for the shy traveler. From the article: "Jeff Buske says his invention uses a powdered metal that protects people's privacy when undergoing medical or security screenings. Buske of Las Vegas, Nev.-Rocky Flats Gear says the underwear's inserts are thin and conform to the body's contours, making it difficult to hide anything beneath them. The mix of tungsten and other metals do not set off metal detectors."
Suspecious (Score:5, Insightful)
A hell of allot of good that do anyone. Its not like if the TSA sees anything remotely out of the ordinary with the scanner you are not going to then get the pat-down or some other intrusive search as a result.
Pat downs (Score:5, Insightful)
This will just get you an enhanced pat down, which you could opt for in the first place.
Problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Suspecious (Score:3, Insightful)
The gropedown is what you get if you opt out of the scan. I'm sure that taking a scan and raising an anomaly involves much more vigorous investigation.
From a buddy of mine (Score:5, Insightful)
"Body scans and genital fondlings would save more lives if our government was paying to have them done in hospitals rather than airports."
This of course assumes the scans are safe, but you get the idea...
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA kills Americans.
fuck the tsa (Score:2, Insightful)
4th amendment point (Score:5, Insightful)
4th amendment protects you against unreasonable search. Seems like it would apply at the airport. TSA claims that you are contractually obligated to put up with search when you enter the secure area and that your air travel ticket states this and as such is a contract. But, you aren't able to sign away your constitutional rights implying, at least, that this component of the air travel contract is illegal. How does this all square up?
Re:Horrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for frustrating TSA agents. Those people are traitors to the cause of liberty. 200 years ago, they would have all been hanged. I think frustrating them is a little less extreme, don't you?
Re:Horrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I reluctantly agree with this point. Although I am generally a law-and-order kind of guy, I think airport security is outside any reasonable threshold along the sliding scale of security, and therefore I think it is unethical for any individual to participate in the enforcement of that security. Basically what I'm saying is fuck those guys, they must be assholes if they agree to do that job.
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:5, Insightful)
~520 annual increase in traffic fatalities was the estimate due to people driving over flying. I believe there was also admittance that the backscatter would cause about 16 additional cancer deaths annually.
Net effect is an estimated 536 increase in annual deaths.
Loss of life due to terrorist attack against westerners from 2006 to 2008 was 12 deaths annually worldwide.
The scanners are estimated to be more deadly than the terrorists have been.
Our trade offs are brilliant.
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if that's true, why are you defending fascism? Seriously. Is there any level of ogvernment intrusion into your privacy that you would object to? Any at all?
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:4, Insightful)
The goal of the Israelis is airport security. The goal of the TSA is increased pubic acceptance of fascism. You can see the difference.
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:5, Insightful)
You've hit on the main issue I have when people call these machines 'safe'. I accept that, under normal operation, they are safe. In the hands of a trained radiologist, I would not hesitate. But these machines are being operated by security people who are barely competent to work at McDonalds. I have already seen with my own eyes evidence of the machines not being used in the way they were intended and more importantly tested. And that's why I reject all claims that they are 'harmless' and will opt for a pat-down. Embarrassment I can recover from.
Re:4th amendment point (Score:5, Insightful)
The Supreme Court. http://openjurist.org/676/f2d/379 [openjurist.org] 676 F. 2d 379 - United States v. Ek
All of which apply to border searches and not routine air travel. There's probably very little legal standing for these searches apart from the "license with the airlines" argument.
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:5, Insightful)
They already said based on the radiation levels and 600 million passengers that about 10 people per year will die from cancer from this screening.
I think the number is lower. Many will die from other causes first.
But say it is 10 and it stops 1 airplane incident per 10 years- it's a wash to a massive savings of life.
Personally, I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next. You are not scanned, there is high density of targets, and it would paralyze travel-- again.
Re:4th amendment point (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did I mention the TSA? Airport-style security violates the 4th amendment, and happens in government buildings where your entrance is not voluntary. The argument that airline travel is "voluntary" is just a feeble argument to prop up fascist practices. I really don't care what argument you come up with, searching ordinary citizens at checkpoints does not belong in the United States. If the conclusion of your argument is "checkpoints are acceptable", your argument is flawed on that basis.
There's nothing in the 4th amendment that says "unless we're scared".
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:4, Insightful)
And the flight actually serves a purpose and gets you to your destination.
Body scanners are just security theater and offer you nothing positive in return.
Re:Risks vs. Benefits unknown? (Score:5, Insightful)
The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.
The part you don't understand is a lot of travelers aren't afraid of TSA. They're afraid of a government free to ignore our constitutional rights. They're afraid of people disappearing in the night and ending up in secret prisons.
No thank you. 9/11 was a nuisance. Tyranny would be a real tragedy. Maybe you should get over your irrational fear of "terrorism" instead of telling people their fear of the government is irrational.
What purpose do these security screenings serve except to inspire a culture of fear. I have trouble differentiating the TSA from Al Qaeda in that regard.
Re:Might save your gonads from radiation too (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I can't see why the terrorist don't attack the security checkin next.
Could it be because there are no real terrorists?