Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Nov 2010 22:34 UTC
Permalink for comment 450238
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-05-27
If you don't like being "sexually violated" then take a f$&*ing boat or train. I'll gladly trade the increased security (even if it isn't necessarily 100% foolproof) for reducing the risk of someone getting a bomb through.
You make points that it is "unclear" if the new scanners would have worked against the Christmas Bomber. Well, you don't make a conclusive argument the other way either.
Frankly, security at airports has been too relaxed for far too long and I'm suprised that more bombs haven't been smuggled aboard.
I do not want to fly on an unsafer plain because people are shy about "nudity", or uppity about getting a pat down. Just deal with it.
P.S. One of the more promising methods I heard was an "instant" lie detector machine developed by Israel. They ask everyone one simple question like "do you have any plans to blow up this plane". If the result is a little bit dodgy, you get completely searched.
Edited 2010-11-17 06:52 UTC