The Naked Truth About Airport Scanners

Are privacy and security compatible?

To judge from the news accounts, Umar Abdulmutallab did everything to get himself caught except wear an Osama bin Laden T-shirt onto that Northwest Airlines flight Christmas Day. Yet the danger didn’t dawn on anyone until he allegedly set himself on fire while trying to detonate the explosives hidden in his underwear.

So the solution being proposed is the one we hear whenever the government fails: Give it greater power.

This is a common liberal impulse. The public schools aren’t educating students adequately? They need more money. The stimulus didn’t rev up job creation? Pass another one.

But when it comes to national security and law enforcement, the same tendency afflicts many conservatives. They generally think the federal government could screw up a three-car funeral, but they expect it to perform with flawless efficiency in finding murderous fanatics. And if it fails, they look to expand its authority to do the job it botched.

This is not true of everyone on the right. One of the ideas already in the works is screening all passengers with full-body scanners that let Transportation Security Administration agents see through clothing. Michael Chertoff, who was secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, has urged their expanded use, while ridiculing “privacy ideologues, for whom every security measure is unacceptable.”

But last year, a bill sponsored by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), banning the routine use of these machines easily passed the House, with the support of two out of every three GOP members. At the time, he warned, “The images offer a disturbingly accurate view of a person’s body underneath clothing, even allowing Transportation Security Administration officials to distinguish gender or see the sweat on a person’s back.”

That vote might come out a little differently today, but Chaffetz is not backing down. “I think that’s the challenge for our society, and there is no simple, easy answer: How do you find that right balance between protecting your personal privacy and yet the need to secure, say, an airplane,” he told public radio station KCPW in Salt Lake City. Yes, there are Republicans who think there are limits to how much privacy we should relinquish in pursuit of security.

Very few of us would be willing to get naked in front of a uniformed agent for the privilege of getting on a plane. But the scanners would have the same effect. How graphic are their images? British authorities barred the use of scanners for travelers under 18 for fear of violating child pornography laws.

Chertoff takes comfort that the officers inspecting the images would not know whose unclothed form they’re viewing and that the faces would be blurred. He seems to assume we can always trust every one of those government employees. (If I were an attractive woman, I’d have particularly strong doubts.)

It’s not reassuring that, as Chertoff notes, travelers could opt to get pat-downs instead. Any pat-down aimed at making sure you aren’t carrying explosive powders in your crotch is going to stir unpleasant memories of your last physical.

As it happens, the sacrifice involved in mass use of the full-body scanners, which TSA is already planning, would probably be futile. A Conservative member of the British parliament who previously worked for a company making scanners said that “in all the testing that we undertook, it was unlikely that it would have picked up the current explosive devices being used by al-Qaida”—including those used in the Christmas plot.

The more intractable problem is that terrorists are fiendishly capable of adaptation. If the scanners can find plastic explosives hidden in underwear—which is not guaranteed—the evildoers have another option that would foil these gadgets: hiding the bomb in a body cavity.

That’s exactly how one suicide bomber tried to assassinate the prince in charge of counterterrorism for Saudi Arabia. The charge went off, and the prince was lucky to survive. Today, full-body scanners. Tomorrow, cavity searches?

Preventing an Airbus from being blown up, of course, doesn’t mean preventing a terrorist from killing large numbers of people. If we secure commercial planes, jihadists can set off their bombs in sports venues, subway cars, shopping malls, or other crowded places.

So here’s the sad reality: If we insist on preserving what little remains of our privacy, we will remain at risk of a terrorist attack. And if we give it up? Ditto.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||

    Good Morning reason!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If the movie Starship Troopers taught me anything (and it did), it showed that in the future co-ed showers will be the norm. That film was from the 90's, which was two decades ago. That means today is the future.

    My point? It's about time for us to get over our body image issues and embrace exhibitionism. Nudity is not a crime. In fact, it can prevent crime. (I didn't say it will, just that it can, so get off my back.)

    In fact, when Reason.com inevitably adds avatars to its blog, mine will be a full body scan of myself. You pervs.

  • TP||

    I would be more than willing to strip down naked and walk through the security checkpoint, but only if it is in "public view".

  • T||

    The Puppet Masters hasn't happened yet. And frankly, there's very few of you lumpy unattractive people I want to see naked when I'm trying to catch a flight.

  • Republican Congress||

    Nudity in public is called indecent exposure. It may even get you on a registry.

    The government like to play the nothing to fear nothing to hide card, yet they demand we hide certain body parts, so there must be some fear about those parts. ;-)

  • Bill in SF||

    It's fun watching how these privacy-invading clowns can't keep their stories straight - the scanners can inherently see your whole body with enough detail to keep the pornographers happy, and if they couldn't then they wouldn't be able to catch the next Underpants Bomber.

    But the clowns are embarrassed to say the word "naked", and they pretend that *you* shouldn't feel embarrassed if the voyeurs inspecting you are in another room and the machine hides your face, because after all you wouldn't be embarrassed to walk around naked with a bag over your head. It does slightly mitigate the problem of screeners preferring to photograph good-looking women and let old fat guys go through unwatched.

    Also, the clowns are pretending that they're protecting your privacy by not letting the voyeurs have USB ports they could use to copy attractive pictures to take home from work, but in reality the system is going to store pictures so they can reference them later if Anything Bad happens. So only the sysadmins and bosses will get to take home naked pictures, just not the grunt-level screeners.

  • ||

    I think the only fitting protest is to play pocket pool before going through the scanner so that you give the goons the raging full salute.

  • T||

    I think taping reflective tape to your chest that says "Fuck the TSA" would work as well. Just don't count on catching your flight.

  • Your Superior Officer||

    What is the difference between half-mast and Half-staff?

  • TP||

    Is it an oversight, or is there a reason for omitting this simple fact from the article regarding Mr Chertoff and his "recommendations"?

    What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Synergy.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    WTF? The company's name is Rapiscan????

    I bet the people who are worried about people seeing them naked will be waaaaay relieved to see that company name printed on the entrance to the scanner.

  • Rimfax||

    I suspect that the 'i' was a typo, but it's too expensive now to correct the trademark with an 'e'.

  • Botox Porcupine||

    HA!

  • Don't Know Much bout Geography||

    "The company's name is Rapiscan????"

    Isn't Rapiscan is one of those countries in the Middle East or former Soviet Union?

    As in, "Osama bin Laden issued another video tape message from his secret cave in Rapiscan."

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    Now there will be another potential job opening for pedophiles! They're not going to just be forced into leading Boy Scout troops and into the priesthood, they can join the TSA and look at naked, under-aged kids for pay!

    God bless America.

  • ||

    Dammit. I went to pediatric proctology school for nothing!

  • Suki||

    That would have been funnier as Dr. McCoy ;)

  • Machination||

    You don't know the half of it. Think these things will stay confined to the airport if someone figures out how to build a "personal" version they can carry around with them/install covertly in their own homes? Think doctors and pornographers and everyone else who can find uses legitimate and otherwise for them is going to let them stay off the market for long?

    Back when miniature digital cameras first came on the market, there was a guy who bought one and installed it in his shoe, using it to get illegal up-skirt shots of girls and women of various ages. If he'd been a bit smarter and less brazen, people might never have caught on to what he was doing. I'm sure a fair number of high school kids have already figured out how to put their cell phone cameras to similar uses.

    As it is, anything the government develops that has many other potential uses is bound to filter its way down to the general public. Someday, people might even have these scanners on their cell phones. If you think sexting is causing controversy now, just wait until you see what a millimeter-wave-scanner-equipped cell phone does to our culture!

    The way things are going, it's already too late for us to fight against these things being installed all over the place. We'd do better to work on things to block their view instead. Doesn't metal show up on these scanners, concealing everything that's behind it? Don't we already have special clothing for people in electronics labs that has metal threads woven into it in order to ground stray electronic charges? Now might be a good time to start mass-producing those clothes in preparation for the day government scanners hit the private market.

  • anonymous||

    The survival of the Saudi prince wasn't due to luck at all, but rather simple physics: It turns out that 200 pounds or so of mostly water (aka a human body) makes an excellent insulator for explosives. Anyone stupid enough to try this on an airplane would only succeed in showering the other passengers with bits of organ, which may be gross, but won't bring down a plane. Furthermore, the type of explosive used by the recent panty-bomber is only meant to be used in conjunction with other explosives to boost their yield. Used by itself, it usually simply sparks and burns, which is exactly what happened in this case.

    All this just goes to show that the critical thinking and engineering skills of someone who would suicide bomb a plane in the name of religion are within eta of their expected value.

  • ||

    The survival of the Saudi prince wasn't due to luck at all, but rather simple physics: It turns out that 200 pounds or so of mostly water (aka a human body) makes an excellent insulator for explosives.

    Easy enough to make a quick visit the airplane bathroom to, err, extract the umm, package.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    What about a shaped charge? One that is pointed back toward the point of entry?

    That way most of the bomber's body does not absorb the blast and instead the damage goes back through the seat and the cabin.

    Think of that time that you drank a quart of tequila and ate tacos from a street vendor in TJ? Like a million times worse than those farts.

    In fact, I think that the next time I see someone leaning over to pull off a one cheek sneak, I have carte blanche to pummel him like a dutch film maker.

  • LarryA||

    Such a shaped charge might make a hole in the seat, and scorch the floor.

    I keep remembering the plane that landed in Hawaii with half the cabin roof gone. Unless you pack a lot more explosive in your gut than I'd be willing to, or set it off in some critical location, airliners are fairly resilient.

  • Kolohe||

    All this just goes to show that the critical thinking and engineering skills of someone who would suicide bomb a plane in the name of religion are within eta of their expected value.

    Those that would suicide bomb the CIA, OTOH...

  • Draco||

    To judge from the news accounts, Umar Abdulmutallab did everything to get himself caught except wear an Osama bin Laden T-shirt onto that Northwest Airlines flight Christmas Day.

    Decent, polite America is in denial that there exists a religion whose more consistent and fanatical adherents are led ineluctably to attempt horrendous acts of mass destruction and terror. Therefore, we must not allow ourselves to think that a young black or brown man with an Arabic/Muslim name should be suspected of harboring evil intentions, and taken aside to be interviewed and discreetly searched. That is the shield behind which terror attacks from Islamic extremists will continue to move forward.

    You see, we must full body scan everyone because to profile would be bigoted and judgmental -- and we're just not like that. Better to impose insane costs on all than to admit that there is such a thing as rational prejudice.

    Fascinating.

  • IceTrey||

    In this case it was the Dutch who were too polite to search this guy. Actually it was the ISRAELI owned security firm ICTS that was too polite. This happens to be the same firm in charge of security at the 9/11 airports and the shoe bomber airport. Coincidence?

  • ||

    This fanatical religion you're talking about - do you mean Islam, or Statism? The latter religion has caused for more mass destruction and terror in the Middle East and Southwest Asia in the last few decades than the former has, and it's no wonder the other fanatics are trying to run our fanatics out of their countries. (Of course, the two religions aren't incompatible - many of the worst fanatics want to re-establish the Caliphate - but they still disagree on who gets to run the State.)

  • ||

    This fanatical religion you're talking about - do you mean Islam, or Statism? The latter religion has caused for more mass destruction and terror in the Middle East and Southwest Asia in the last few decades than the former has, and it's no wonder the other fanatics are trying to run our fanatics out of their countries. (Of course, the two religions aren't incompatible - many of the worst fanatics want to re-establish the Caliphate - but they still disagree on who gets to run the State.)

  • T||

    Here's my problem with the current clusterfuck that calls itself airline security. If you're going to require me to give up my rights in exchange for security, there'd better be some discernable increase in security. I'm still not gonna be happy about it or approve of it, but at least the tradeoff makes some sense. But when you're telling me to give up my rights for some bullshit dog and pony show that doesn't actually provide additional security, fuck you. You fail on every conceivable level.

  • ||

    In some ways, the insistence on treating every airplane passenger exactly the same fits right into the liberal/statist mindset.

    The reason to (rationally) categorize passengers according to risk is that we have limited resources for security, and should apply those resources where they are most likely to do good.

    To a liberal/statist, though, the Total State has unlimited resources, and need never take any action premised on the assumption that it does not.

  • ||

    You really think that the idea of unlimited resources, especially when talking about security issues, is liberal? That's conservative territory.

  • ||

    No, that would be the opposite of conservative

  • ||

    Wouldn't that make most "conservatives" the opposite of themselves?

  • ||

    ... what?

  • ||

    I don't care about somebody seeing my naked (nude?) body. Given the small amount of risk, it's just not worth the time and money we're spending on it. What about the 37,000 deaths a year due to automobiles? Shouldn't driving be illegal?

  • Nancy Pelosi||

    The common cattle get what they deserve. Me, I fly military. The nice boys are so attentive to my every need.

  • Republican Congress||

    Your welcome.

  • Democratic Congress||

    Your welcome for the larger plane, all the better to handle your ego.

  • Diction Nazi||

    Bipartisan error? Ye gods! No wonder our country's going down the tubes! Learn the difference between "Your" and "You're" already, douchebags!

  • thenino85||

    The argument that "well, they're going to find another way to do X anyway, so let's not do anything about the problem" that always shows up in these kinds of articles is a really stupid argument to make, and it's sad how many people continue to make such a logically flawed assertion. I'm not talking about the straw man counter response "well, then by your logic we should get rid of ALL Y, since X is a type of Y, and as X does not do any type of prevention, no element of Y should either." Sure, people might move away from X, but that they choose to do X means that they think it's the best possible course of action. The other options might be so prohibitive expensive that even though there is an option to do something else, they'll choose not to pursue it, or a vastly diminished number would.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the article is wrong. Just like the "oil funds terrorism" argument is stupid, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't develop our own oil resources. But I must say, I find it amazing how with airline security, libertarians suddenly start feeling the right to tell airlines what they should or shouldn't do. Airlines are still technically private entities; if they want to do full body screening, they should be able to. TSA is not private, I acknowledge that. But this argument always seems to end up talking about the morality of these screenings, and many of the arguments can be used to argue that I shouldn't be able to do a full-body screening of people coming into my house in order to make myself feel more secure. This seems like an odd libertarian stance. Almost kinda statist, if you ask me.

  • ||

    Wow. Really?

  • Kroneborge||

    how to do you figure that oil "doesn't" fund terrorism.

    High oil prices allow corrupt theocratic regiems like Iran to stay in power. These regiems have also been shown to fund terrorism.

    Thus oil funds terrorism. See simple.

  • Tricksy Politico||

    Maybe you're right. So if Bush's true motivation for invading Iraq had been taking all its oil for ourselves, wouldn't the increase in our security such a confiscation would have brought us have been a laudable secondary goal? Wouldn't going after the oil of all these despotic Middle Eastern regimes be a well-nigh heroic activity?

    So what's with all the complaining about this supposedly being his motive? If anything, shouldn't we scold Bush for not pursuing Iraq's oil vigorously enough?

  • Steve||

    "the officers inspecting the images would not know whose unclothed form they’re viewing and that the faces would be blurred"
    Then how would they figure out who was smuggling the bomb?

  • ||

    Well, the problem here is that the TSA is a big JOKE. The TSA is the biggest WASTE of an agency that there is, plain and simple!

    Jess
    www.total-anonymity.at.tc

  • ||

    See? Once in a while, privacy bot makes a comment I can completely approve of.

  • thumbs up||

    ... and mentions his (real?) name... Hi Jess.

  • Rimfax||

    I still don't understand why leaving airline security entirely with the airlines is not even near the table. Pass law and secure international agreements that an airline and its stakeholders will be held liable for all losses caused by inadequately screened passengers and let the underwriters sort it out. How much longer will security theater last in such an environment?

  • ||

    """How much longer will security theater last in such an environment?""

    Probably a long time. What the odds that the airlines with the most security theater would pay the lowest insurance premiums.

  • ||

    The objective isn't to make people more secure - it's to make them more dependent on big powerful government. Making passenger protection the job of the airlines is just the opposite of that.

  • Infrequent Flyer||

    What am I missing? Flying is voluntary. If you don't agree to the price, terms and conditions then don't fly.

    J

  • Patrick||

    I've got an idea, make all airport security naked, so passengers can feel more comfortable.

    Require elected politicians to vote naked too.

  • ||

    We can pair Congress up in boy, girl, boy, girl format and make CSPAN a porn channel. That way it's viewership will increase 100% for a total of two viewers.

  • Patrick||

    I think it will be more than 2- there are more than 2 masochists in the country.

  • Nobody Importanat||

    "We can pair Congress up in boy, girl, boy, girl format and make CSPAN a porn channel."

    I thought CSPAN is a porn channel.

    Every time I turn it on, there's a bunch of whores who want to screw us all.

  • John Armstrong||

    Here's what I'm doing to resist this:

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article7232.html

  • ||

    I still maintain the best security would be to eliminate all security checks of passengers and allowing, if not making it mandatory for some passengers to carry guns. In addition to this, make it impossible to access the cockpit from the cabin, i.e., build planes to have a separate door to get to the cockpit.

    After this, I think there needs to be a change in culture (which I freely admit, I have no idea how to change). The current culture seems to be to sit still and accept what's happening, instead of fighting like hell whenever you feel threatened. As I understand it, the Christmas bomber was stopped by a guy TWO ROWS AWAY, meaning that the people sitting close to him sat there and watched him set himself on fire. I mean WTF people, if nothing else 9/11 should have taught people to stand up and kick the crap out of these people immediately!

    I still can't believe that we are such a culture of wusses that the 9/11 terrorists took over plane with box cutters. Yes, I am saying that 9/11 occurred because the passengers on the plane were too wimpy to actually defend themselves against clear cut terrorists (anyone who hijacks a plane is a clear cut terrorist). The ratio of terrorists to passengers on any plane is overwhelmingly against the terrorists.

  • LarryA||

    “The images offer a disturbingly accurate view of a person’s body underneath clothing, even allowing Transportation Security Administration officials to distinguish gender or see the sweat on a person’s back.”

    I can mostly tell pointers from sitters and who is sweating without the scanner. The images I’ve seen are pretty well gray blobs, about as enticing as the losing-weight-girl gifs. Given what’s available on the internet someone would have to be truly bent to take a TSA job just to see body scans. Anyone who would worry about such is way too prudish to be making laws for me.

    After this, I think there needs to be a change in culture (which I freely admit, I have no idea how to change). The current culture seems to be to sit still and accept what's happening, instead of fighting like hell whenever you feel threatened.

    True pre 9/11. Not so much now, at least in the U.S.

    As I understand it, the Christmas bomber was stopped by a guy TWO ROWS AWAY, meaning that the people sitting close to him sat there and watched him set himself on fire.

    Remember that this was a flight coming into the U.S. from Europe. It would be interesting to know if any of the folks that didn’t respond were actually U.S. citizens.

    Over on PJTV Bill Whittle calls for passenger training in fighting back, and notes that the floatation seat cushions would be fair protection against a box cutter.

  • Flyer||

    a bomb-proof steel chamber that will detonate any kind of explosive could stop airplane terrorism. Prior to boarding, every passenger must go through this sensitive machine that triggers explosion should the person has cancelled weapons. He dies alone inside the chamber.

  • ||

    Oo - I like it! Wait - can I safely take my Zippo through? Probably not...so I'd better have some checked luggage to store it in. And remember to put it there...I don't want my groinal area burned like the Ubomber. OK - maybe I'll continue to hate flying and avoid it like the plague (mostly due to the fact that being packed into a plane with the other traveling cattle is grossly uncomfortable in the best of circumstances), but go to the airport now and again to buy some popcorn, pull up a chair and watch everyone go through the bomb box! I like it again!

  • ||

    Maybe if we drove naked we'd be safer? I dunno

  • Buck Steele||

    Here's a thought. Could it be that this has been hugely successful the Islamo-fascists? He may have intended on getting caught, and only a lucky bonus if he really managed to blow up the plane. Now, he's in our court system, entitled to all the rights and priveleges thereto pertaining. He and his lawyers will be able to subpoena all kinds of sensitive information, including that pertaining to methods and people, associated with our antiterrorism efforts. This is just me, but he should be treated as less than a war criminal, spirited off to a little bungalo in an Eastern-European slum, and begin an intimate relationship with some wet sponges and a car battery.

  • flower85||

    What happened to security dogs? If a trained dog can smell a single cell of melanoma cancer on a human being, she can surely snort out a package of explosives, body cavity or otherwise.

  • Augustbrhm||

    The answer is simple get out of the middle east leave them alone with themselves.The west have been a cancer in the middle east since the 12th century. How on earth will the west fight 1.3 billion muslims.

  • TMOverbeck||

    The trouble with that is: the conservatives won't admit defeat in the area and the liberals won't let you drill for oil where America has plenty of it.

  • ||

    Look, there's a really simple answer that doesn't require racial profiling and doesn't involve any invasion of privacy; in fact, we can all go back to packing whatever we want in our carry-on bags.

    All you have to do is give every TSA agent a bible and a pig on a leash, and make every passenger pet the pig and spit on the bible before getting on the plane. Problem solved.

    Anyone got a few million lying around to invest in Atheist Airways?

  • Recovered Newt||

    Because SOOO many flights have been brought down by a guy carrying a Bible, right?

    We should install a wood-burning stove in each airport and require everybody who wants to board a flight to throw a book by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris into the fire.

    While we're at it, let's just have every atheist arrested and reprogrammed to be docile. According to their own twisted, nihilistic worldview, atheists don't really have any rights other than what we give them anyway. We've been too lax with this crazy cult of theirs for too long, and it's not as if any deities are looking out for them.

  • Dave||

    Let's just change the penalty for attempting to bring on or blow up a bomb on an airplane to life imprisonment with a pig and then burial with the pig. No way to the 72 virgins with pig guts intermixed.

  • ||

    GOD BLESS ISRAELI INGENUITY.....according to The TSA Is Funding Airport Mind-Reading Scanners

    By Daniel Tencer, Raw Story. Posted January 9, 2010.

    The risks to personal privacy inherent in mind-reading technologies should concern the public about abuse of their rights.

    Amid the media furor over the attempted Christmas Day attacks and a renewed political focus on enhancing airport security, attention is turning to a technological advancement that will have civil rights activists -- or, for that matter, anyone with a secret --seriously worried: Mind-reading machines.

    "As far-fetched as that sounds, systems that aim to get inside an evildoer's head are among the proposals floated by security experts thinking beyond the X-ray machines and metal detectors used on millions of passengers and bags each year," AP's Michael Tarm reports.

    Tarm focuses on an Israeli company called WeCU Technologies (as in "we see you"), which is building a system that would turn airport waiting areas into arenas for Pavlovian behavioral tests:

    The system ... projects images onto airport screens, such as symbols associated with a certain terrorist group or some other image only a would-be terrorist would recognize, company CEO Ehud Givon said.

  • ||

    Steve Chapman complains about full body scanners at airport screening points as an "invasion of privacy", but says nothing about the officious use of government power undertaken presently, e.g., the six hour shutdown of Newark airport and the herding of 10,000 passengers into cramped quarters soley because one man jumped a line to kiss his girlfriend good-bye and left the airport before security police could identify and punish him. Which is the greater imposition upon the traveling public, not to mention to the greater defier of common sense? X-ray scanners which allow people to pass through normally and expeditiously, with rare exceptions of individuals who present some unusual image, or the wholesale subjection to martial law of an entire airport full of innocent passengers? Best of all would be to come to a national recognition that "terrorism" happens, especially to a country that tries to contain, with deadly force, an international empire, and if that is how we want our government to behave we have to live with the consequences. We could dispense with airport security entirely and the odds of being a victim of a terrorist attack would still be less than getting in a wreck in the drive to or from the airport. When will we stop buying the government line that their expensive and intrusive shenanigans are even helpful, much less essential, to protecting our personal security?

  • ||

    So Mr. Dalton, in light of said shenanigans and what they suggest about our "homeland security" apparatus, is there anything that would lead you to believe that martial law will be loosened at airports once these new scanners are in place?

    Frankly, I think we're only a breath away from having these in every courthouse, and ultimately every high school in the country. So while sixteen year old kids get punished for sending photos to each other, Dr. High School Principal gets to sit in his office with a big grin on his face when Mary Jane walks by.

    This is actually the authoritarian's idea of a perfect society. Punishment and unwilling sexual exposure on a daily basis. This will work wonders at demolishing whatever pride is left in the national psyche.

  • ||

    Steve - I like the point you are making yet I find your left/right, liberal/Republican polarizations disgusting.

  • British Coal||

    I refuse to allow three-dimensional electromagnetic images of me to be used for the sexual gratification of pervert airport security staff. If these filthy swines want to sit around all day leering at pornographic images of fat holidaymakers then they can do it at home, on their own time, like the rest of us. Join my campaign to ban these government-sanctioned toss-booths. I've got Branson's mobile number and T-Shirts with slogans and all sorts.
    http://absolute-sense.blogspot.com/

  • M. Rocknest||

    When nervous performers are afraid to go on stage they imagine everyone in the audience is naked. I think TPTB are afraid that the masses are getting pissed off enough to actually revolt and so in a similar manner they are forcing travelers to pass through naked body scanners. It’s another step towards stripping away the dignity from everyone who is not them. Eventually those obscene scanners will spread beyond the airports. So TPTB gain control over the masses by making them feel more and more vulnerable and the problem of a revolt is solved. All it took was a rather ridiculous false flag operation on Christmas day. The zombie patsy with no passport was escorted onto that plane by CIA/Mossad for gosh sake! It’s pathetic actually how easily people can be hoodwinked into submission.

  • wffegr||

    Frankly, I think we're only a breath away from having these in every courthouse, and ultimately every high school in the country. So while sixteen year old kids get punishedreplica omega replica IWC for sending photos to each other, Dr. High School Principal gets to sit in his office with a big grin on his face when Mary Jane walks by.

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...

  • 50 Inch Flat Screen Tv||

    I differ with most guys here; I started reading this blog post I couldn't stop, although it wasn't just what I had been searching for, was still a fantastic read though. I will instantly get your blog feed to keep in touch of coming updates.

  • Jacksonville CPA||

    What's the use of sniffing dogs or security? A well-trained dog can smell explosives, body cavity, etc. Why can't we depend on the if they are trained to do so.

  • Tek Link Film İndir||

  • مرقاب حائل||

    asgasg

  • Ricky||

  • tonteri||

  • nike running shoes||

    is good

  • mbt discount||

    good

  • sannianeban||

    Thanks

  • nike dunk high tops||

    nice

  • Air Yeezy 2 For Sale||

    nice

  • ||

    Superior article. I intention certainly share this article with my friends. Thanks as a service to the info.www.apple.com/ipod/start

  • abcd54||

    to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it hermes belt replica straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious fake hermes belt beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different

  • abcd54||

    hell or anything nike shox torch 2 crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it hermes belt replica straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious fake hermes beltnike shox torch 2 beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different

  • abcd54||

    sometimes the chanel sunglasses sale foreign policy goal really iy scared of Commies just like they're now scared of Muslims, and sometimes the foreign policy goals are to do favors

  • abcd54||

    he Bible's moncler outlet books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on..moncler jackets cheap .the Bible's books were written by people with very different

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement