Steve Butters

wait....you're ok with full body scanners, but a scanner for SHOES is unconstitutional? i hope you're joking. also...how is profiling constitutional? i thought we all had equal rights as citizens, not "if youre a white male that doesnt appear to be a threat, you're ok...but if you look a little odd, we're going to have to check you"

This seems like a good start, actually your whole answer seems very well thought out, but then you run into problems with Americans. Most other countries don't have the same freedoms as we do, and if you take any measures to so much as look at an American citizen, it seems like they are crying out that their rights are being taken away (I'm not referring to the guy with the video camera - i also agree he did nothing wrong, and should not have been arrested...although I'm not sure I agree with his reasons for doing it - but thats another story.) You can't check physical clothing because you're not allowed to touch people. You can't have people step through a scanner because theyre ashamed of having small weiners and can't deal with the whole world seeing them. You basically can't do anything that involves checking or making contact with citizens because they believe their rights trump all security measures. Also, Israel does use profiling to help in their security measures. They are the "most" secure country for airports, but you would not be able to take or adapt their methods because they conflict with the constitution. How are you supposed to conduct a more effective security check if you have no right to have people walk through a metal detector or send their personal belongings down a scanning belt?

no they didnt, hence they answered "No" and then continued on with a response i get it though man, you win, whatever - no skin off my back

$1 per mailing address....is that the going rate these days? thought these companies just bought bulk lists lol

Im more wondering what you feel would be more effective, what type of security measures. Budget aside, using only technology that is available to us (no jedi mind power), how would you have security stations laid out to run with minimal humans involved, while being an improvement over the apparently broke system in place now?

I realize that, I was the one asking about "all" measures. I was not responding to a specific quote of anyone, simply asking a new question to get views. Apparently jrmmii and judd got it, since they replied. Didn't think a simple question was that hard.

How do you propose it should be fixed? If you were head of the security team for an airport (theoretically, TSA is not involved) - how would you have the security checkpoints set up?

What do you propose would be a better method than the metal detectors and the belts, while not invading upon peoples rights and privacy?

because i meant all....obviously it is ineffective because people get through it, therefore according to jrmmiii it is unreasonable. so if its unreasonable, should it be removed? should metal detectors, and the scanning belts be removed?

jrmmiii, judd, fusion: do you suggest we eliminate all airport security, due to it being unreasonable because it is ineffective? *serious question, not sarcasm*

agreed. security has come a long way since 2002

a detonator and fuse running from the base of the shoe up to the tongue, would show up - even if the substance wasnt identified. you would be able to physically see the fuse on the scanner also - new scanners are in the works http://dvice.com/archives/2010/10/new-scanning-de.php

how so? checking shoes doesnt seem unreasonable to me after what happened with richard reid do you think people should not be checked at all at airport security? as in, remove the entire security checkpoint from air ports and let people fend for themselves, since its unconstitutional to check them for weapons?

ok so it would not beep in a metal detector so without a scanner to check shoes, it would be impossible to detect shoe bombs so again...why should shoes not be checked in a scanner? do you think its alright for non-metal shoe bombs to be allowed onto planes, simply because they didnt beep in the metal detector? apparently though, you cant come up with any logical reason for shoes to NOT be checked, so i guess im done trying to debate with ya since all you have is wit and sarcasm regarding this topic

and again, how about trying to explain why you think shoes should not be checked? if you have a bomb knitted into your t-shirt somehow, im pretty sure the wand would pick it up when you step through the scanner and it goes off...if its in a shoe, its down at the ground where its unlikely to even get scanned - and considering most shoes have some sort of metal in/on them, it would drastically slow security lines to wand every single passenger who has little metal eyelets for their shoe laces...furthermore, if you wanted to plant a bomb inside of a shoe, using a shoe with metal eyelets would be a great excuse, or even a steel toed boot... then its going to beep for sure, and you could play it off "oh its just my shoe lace holes and my steel toe" and the wand wouldnt know otherwise....hence the scanner....a steel toe shoe is going to beep either way, so do you suggest that the wand is enough security to check shoes without anybody ever having to remove them? a shoe bomb configued in this manner using a steel toe work boot - would be 100% impossible to detect without running it through a scanner - if used with certain brand boots my work boots have a steel support shank that runs the entire length of the boot, right under the sole....so my boot would beep in the toe, the heel, and everywhere else

how about instead of rolling your eyes, explain your side? why should shoes not have to be checked? i dont want richard reid playing footsie on any flight im on

yea...nobody has ever put a bomb inside of a shoe before

wouldnt waste my time or money....his music used to be good, then someone chopped off his balls and installed a vajayjay

at my school, a month before prom, they took a car that was thoroughly fucking smashed and rolled over and everything else and they set it right next to the main sign for our school so we would all pass it heading into the parking lot as a reminder lol

shes rolling around in a big metal chair...of course its going to get checked at the airport i dont want some muslim chick pretending to be wheelchair bound so she can smuggle crap through security inside of her unchecked chair... its not like theyre strip searching her, you clearly said they check her chair and not her...thats no different than people having to take off their shoes

fowler did it...but i would NOT recommend them next time i will be going to ERS

mostly family members what i was getting at, is that you can get a nice decent mileage reliable vehicle for 10k....you dont have to spend 40k to have something nice people with that mentality annoy the hell outta me... because my 10k vehicle can be just as reliable and nice as their 40k vehicle, yet they will look down on it....but i bet when someone rolls up in a 100k car, their 40k car starts to look like a pile of shit next to it...even though previously, it was a sound car....thats what im getting at...just because something costs more, doesnt mean that cheaper vehicles are automatically junk

my saab cost me $7500 - my mustang cost me $6k both under 10k and i know plenty of people who brag about how much their junk costs....makes me laugh every time too because usually they paid way too much for it

yea man...no truck is a good truck unless youre able to brag about how much it cost...AMIRITE??? if your vehicle payment isnt as much as a mortgage payment, you must be a schmuck

dammit this shit pisses me off... http://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/2165737278.html i tried to buy this truck in may, but the guy had already sold it...so the guy who bought it is now selling it, and i already bought a truck