Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EU Approves Unified Full Body Scanner Regulations

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the security-not-quite-worth-cancer dept.

EU 225

OverTheGeicoE writes "The European Union has adopted a proposal to regulate airport body scanners at Member State airports. No Member State or airport is obligated to use scanners, but if they do, the scanners must conform to new European Union standards. Here's a partial list: Scanners must not store, retain, copy, print, or retrieve passenger images; the image viewer must be in a remote location; passengers must be informed how the scanners are being controlled; and can opt out if they choose. Perhaps most importantly: X-ray scanners are banned 'in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety.'"

cancel ×

225 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

EU still has some sense left, compared to US (5, Interesting)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057044)

Not only is EU not requiring their use, they are actually putting several limitations on how they're used and saying citizens can opt-out. Good job, EU!

Now, if someone would just kick UK out of EU. It's almost as bad as US.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (2, Insightful)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057068)

In Sovejet Europe government controlls commerce.

Disclaimer: I am European and I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism. I do think these regulations are a good plan.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (1)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057192)

I share your opinion, but you should know that the "Soviet XY" terminology has been hijacked by the ultra-right wing. So your comment might easily be misunderstood.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057314)

True, hence the large disclaimer. I thought of the "In Sovjet Europe" as a joke, but had to incorporate my true opinion into the post.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057364)

That's odd. Some professional cold war intelligence agents say that the right wing movement appears to be run by agents of the soviet union.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057222)

Are you sure you're not referring to "balance between socialism and capitalism" as it is in Northern Europe at the moment?

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057454)

No I am not sure. I just used Communism in the disclaimer because I had used in the joke. Socialism would have been more appliccable.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (4, Insightful)

mitashki (1116893) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057670)

Disclaimer: I am European and I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism.

Actually I do believe the BEST government would use the good ideas from both and refuse to follow the ideologies and propaganda from both. For the record I am an European too (whatever it might mean these days).

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057120)

The UK is the Poodle. Fuck you Poodle!

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057202)

I would rather the UK not leave the EU otherwise we would be subject to lots more stupid intrusions into our private lives (like we don't have enough already).

The financial mess in the Euro zone aside, The EU (though costly to the UK) has brought some benefit in curtailing the nutters who think they know best for everyone else.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (1, Interesting)

greatpatton (1242300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057326)

Costly? Never heard of the UK budget rebate ? As a little reminder:

The UK won the rebate in 1984, after the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher threatened to halt payments to the EU budget. Margaret Thatcher Margaret Thatcher is misquoted as saying: 'I want my money back!' "We are not asking the Community or anyone else for money," she said at a summit in Fontainebleau. "We are simply asking to have our own money back".

And guess who pay for you? The others EU members.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (4, Informative)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057448)

Gordon Brown gave up part of the rebate a few years ago, we still put far more in than we get out even with the rebate and always have. Europe does not by any measure pay for the UK, France's farming subsidies are the elephant in the room in this respect if anything.

The UK very much makes a loss in terms of pure money pumped into the EU vs. money returned via EU initiatives by a longshot, the benefit we get out (as is the case for others that put in more than they get out, like Germany) is easier access to the European markets so it comes back and pays for itself in terms of improved trade and better bargaining terms with the rest of the world as the EU can speak as one entity on many topics.

Personally I think it's worth it, but if EU nations want rid of us then have fun trying to fill the funding shortfall that's used to help the poorer Eurozone economies improve like Romania, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania etc. I'm sure Germany will be more than happy to spend even more money financing the rest of Europe and France will enjoy being forced to give up it's farming subsidies.

No really, the UK is a backbone economy for the EU, like both France and Germany are. The EU would be massively weaker and poorer without it.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (5, Informative)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057794)

According to the site of the european parliament, in the 2010 balance of the European Union, the "net contributors" to the EU are:
1) Germany (19.6 %)
2) France (18%)
3) Italy (13.9 %)
4) United Kingdom (10.4%)
5) Spain (9.6%)

Of course these numbers aren't too meaningful, because they don't track the indirect benefits that a member country enjoys for being in the EU. For example, the import fees paid by a country that is importing goods for China, appear as paid by that country in the balance, but they will actually be paid by the final customers of those goods in reality.

But you can read that the image of France being a burden for other member states because of its agriculture subsidies is wrong: they pay to the EU more than what they actually receive, and in particular they pay almost twice as much as the UK.

The problem with the UK in the EU is not economic, it's their political dissent every time that an EU treaty is to be made. Which stems from the fact that probably, most of the UK population is against the EU. I think the UK shoud solve this problem by clearly asking their citizens if they really want to be inside the EU. If the answer is negative, then the UK should withdraw from the union and leave it to the states who are actually interested in its construction.

I'd rather take an EU that is 10% poorer but that works, instead of one that never acts because every decision is shot down by the crossed vetoes of the member states.

The "two-speeds" union that is starting to delineate, with the members of the Euro zone having special government structures, might be a good step in this direction; but it's still too soon to tell.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (4, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058286)

It took a while to find the figures you cite, but I found them here. You've mistakenly, or dishonestly misrepresented them, they are not net contribution figures:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/headlines/content/20080605FCS31027/5/html/What-about-the-Net-Contributors%E2%80%9D [europa.eu]

Whilst the article is about net contribution it actually avoids the question and those specific figures merely state the amount paid in, not the net amount once returns are received. Once this is taken into account France's contribution drops drastically. Whilst France has improved it's net contribution in recent years you can see the disparity here from back in 2007 under net contribution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start [bbc.co.uk]

Or the cold hard historical figures for every year between 1999 - 2007 here if you prefer:

http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/ [eu-oplysningen.dk]

"The problem with the UK in the EU is not economic, it's their political dissent every time that an EU treaty is to be made. Which stems from the fact that probably, most of the UK population is against the EU."

I'm not sure what you mean here, most countries in the EU have a degree of euroscepticism, but the UK ratified the Lisbon treaty with far less hassle than many other countries that outright voted against it in it's original form. Do you not remember Ireland having to run the referendum on it twice because they said no the first time?

Whilst recent polls have shown 49% support leaving the EU and only 40% definitely staying in I don't think come a referendum we would leave, because these polls were commissioned against a background of Euroscepticism - UKIP and far right wing Tories stoking things up against the background of the Euro appearing on the verge of collapse. I think the fact they could still only muster 49% to leave in self interest commissioned polls against that background is quite telling. That's ignoring the fact any referendum would be backed by a campaign pointing out all the Tory/UKIP FUD and how it's actually about bringing back things like employment law so the average Joe can be forced to work more than 48hours in a week benefiting corporations and not the average citizen. Really, less than half against the background of potential Euro collapse and a massive one sided FUD offensive that's been led up to by a year or two long FUD offensive? that's pretty weak.

"I'd rather take an EU that is 10% poorer but that works, instead of one that never acts because every decision is shot down by the crossed vetoes of the member states."

And you think the UK is a stalling point here? really? You only have to look at the painfully slow inaction over the Euro to see the UK is far from Europe's worst offender in acting with haste, and Eastern European and Mediterranean nations bickering over past rivalries be it Cyprus blocking Turkey's entry, or the ex-Yugoslav nations blocking each other.

If I've learnt anything over the years it's that alternating opinions blocking legislation is almost always a good thing. When legislation is rammed through without care for minority opinions it's rarely good legislation, and when it's passed because everyone agrees it's generally good.

I'd like to see decreases euro-scepticism in our country and I think it'll come with time, but I think the UK being in the EU is far better for both the UK and the EU. It's mutually beneficial for everyone.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38058174)

I would rather the UK not leave the EU otherwise we would be subject to lots more stupid intrusions into our private lives (like we don't have enough already).

The financial mess in the Euro zone aside, The EU (though costly to the UK) has brought some benefit in curtailing the nutters who think they know best for everyone else.

The problem with the UK is that it wants the benefits of the EU without its costs.
And the fact that it doesn't really believe in the EU ideals.
De Gaulle many decades ago had figured the UK pretty well and that was the reason he vetoed their entry in the CEE. Unfortunately the next president negated this decision and we have had to cope with this trojan horse ever since.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (4, Informative)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057562)

Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now. We don't have laws against headscarfs and stuff either which is something. Even outside Europe now that Harper is in in Canada I think the UK is doing fairly well, we're certainly in a much better place than we were under Brown's authoritarian rule 2 years ago.

I suppose you can still hold a grudge over the UK for Iraq, but we haven't been there for a few years now, we're still in Afghanistan, like the rest of Europe. I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent. It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed. There's still a long way to go of course, but then, find me a country where there isn't.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (0)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057620)

our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent.

Yeah, that I must give you credit for. At least you don't blindly take whatever, and actually do something about it. Here anything bad done by government leads to massive "liking" of Facebook page that tells you to go protest in front of the parliament, where then actually maybe 10-15 people will show up to drink some coffee and eat pastry.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (4, Interesting)

johnjaydk (584895) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057690)

Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.

+5 funny

The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan who is wide seen as a bug in search of a windshield.

Total Debt to GDP ratios [tinyurl.com]

Sorry to burst Your bubble but the bond market will discover this fact eventually.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057866)

And since the UK is not part of the Euro, there will be little incentive for other EU states to bail them out.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (1, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057982)

Ah, yes, but our currency has a picture of a real proper God's anointed Queen on it, not a bunch of abstract squiggles and random Godless squinty-eyes like the Monopoly money they use in Japan. There's your difference right there.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (4, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058154)

The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan

The "total debt to GDP ratio" may be only slightly below japan but the government debt is a MUCH smaller proportion of the total debt than with japan.

But more important than the amount of debt is what that debt is denominated in. If a government has debts denominated in their own currency they can order their central bank (in practice they probably won't even need to make the order) to offer them unlimited loans at a fixed interest rate so the only way they will default is if they chose to do so.

OTOH if a government has large debts denominated in a currency under outside control they are at the mercy of the countries that control those currencies. That is why greece and italy are in so much trouble, they sacrificed their financial sovereignty by joining the Euro.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38058160)

Those figures you point to are distorted by our disproportionately large financial sector. Which given that they're backed by gov.uk means that they actually have a vested interest in keeping our bond prices stable. As far as actually managing our government debt, we do quite well, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15717770

A big problem with both Italian (and French debt) is that a lot of it is short-term and constantly has to be renewed. Hence depending on the given prevailing market circumstances their actual lending costs as they auction off more bonds can sky rocket. Because UK's debt is more long-term (averaging 13 years maturity) it gives a greater opportunity to get our shit together, and consequently gives the market less reason to panic.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058196)

The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world.

Your source appears to be nearly two years out of date. A lot has happened in that time, so I don't think we can read too much into those figures today.

Back then, a large chunk of that UK debt was down to the financial institutions in the City; the government debt level was towards the lower end on the chart. However, we can't see how much impact the various bail-outs have made from that data.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057736)

Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.

Wait, what? What does particular instance of the EU being sensible with regard to protecting citizen's rights have to do with economic policy? Or are you saying the two are mutually exclusive? And what's this about a grudge over the war in Iraq? You realize many european countries other than the UK were in Iraq as well, right?

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057856)

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now. We don't have laws against headscarfs and stuff either which is something.

How about some fact checking? Last time I checked the case on wether or not Dutch ISP's need to block things like the Pirate Bay was still ongoing, after several of the Netherlands' largest ISPs refused to block them. There's still an ongoing trial on wether or not it is ISP's job to block sites deemed 'illegal'. Also, it seems there is at least some legal foundation in the UK to block websites, looking at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/26/bt-block-newzbin2-filesharing-site - which is basically the same thing going on here in the Netherlands.

In fact, on the whole I believe the Netherlands has a pretty good rep on internet freedom, for example our government were one of the first European countries to actually put net neutrality into law.

I definitely agree with you on the whole law against headscarfs thing though. In fact, Geert Wilders (very popular right-wing politician) even suggested a tax on head scarfs (I still don't know if he was serious or not). I'm not happy with the general state of citizen freedom in Europe, but I can't really see how any particular country is doing much worse than the rest.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38058318)

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands...

The UK only has the highest number of surveillance cameras on a per capita basis, while at the same time admitting they don't reduce crime, and don't really help solve crime either.

The UK is also the only country (AFAIK) that can force you to give up a password so that they can get evidence to help convince you. If you don't give them the password (which can help work against you), they can charge you with another crime; catch-22.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057844)

Nowhere can be as bad as they are used in the US ... and *nowhere* else has the TSA we must deal with ... NO ONE.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058166)

yeah fucking manchester airport uses scanners and they're mandatory. pisstake. at least this is going to change.

Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (2)

Raumkraut (518382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058282)

Last I heard this was not true. You absolutely can opt out of being scanned at Manchester. Of course, if you do so, you'll also be opting out of catching your flight...

Alas, I suspect that the UK government will, if at all possible (and even if not), interpret the EU's requirement for the right to opt out of scanning in a similar fashion.

Passenger can opt out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057100)

Hopefully this means they will not be allowed onto the plane.

Re:Passenger can opt out... (0, Offtopic)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057142)

I hope they do. I am a really fat person. I don't want someone to get traumatized for looking at my naked body.

Re:Passenger can opt out... (3, Informative)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057262)

Hopefully this means they will not be allowed onto the plane.

No.

'In addition, passengers are given the right to opt out from a control with scanners and be subject to an alternative method of screening.'

Re:Passenger can opt out... (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058224)

So something even more unpleasant than being virtually strip-searched, like the US "enhanced pat-downs", can be expected shortly in the UK then?

I'm afraid I'm not optimistic about this as far as the UK goes. I'm in the "doesn't fly because it's so unpleasant these days" camp, and I'm also in the "annoyed that they are spending lots of taxpayers' money on security theatre" camp. I've heard one too many rumours about people who refused the body scanner winding up on a terrorist watch list and one too many reported excuses about how "almost everyone is happy to go through" to have any faith that our authorities are going to behave in what I consider an acceptable fashion on this one.

I content myself with the fact that the airline industry appears to be dying a slow, painful death at the hands of consumer wallets. They can spin reaction to one intrusive/unpleasant security idea after another all they like, but I don't really believe anyone is choosing to fly because of those checks who wouldn't otherwise. However, I'm quite sure that some people are not flying, or flying only when they absolutely have to, as a result. Sooner or later, that's going to hit them where it hurts the most -- their bottom line -- and it will hit businesses and tourism too.

Re:Passenger can opt out... (1)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057390)

Dear clueless, opting out does not mean you do not get searched/screened. You can only opt-out of this specific mode of screening and be screened by an alternate method instead. But I guess you are either an exhibitionist or a voyeur, depending on which side of the scanner you happen to be. Personally I would prefer a non-xray and zero-health-risk form of scanning that obscures my actual body by representing it as silhouette or line drawing instead. We need machines that are sophisticated enough to accommodate the fact that the security personnel do not need to look at every mole and scar on my body, and need only to look at the external objects I am carrying on my person(and/or hidden objects concealed inside the body).

But seriously, way too many more folks die in just road accidents. Why are we wasting all this effort and money on this instead of putting all that funding into automated driver-less cars, instead of going overboard with something that has statistically caused far few deaths... I mean assuming the goal is actually to save human lives and not just massage the ego of certain countries.

Re:Passenger can opt out... (4, Interesting)

GauteL (29207) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057894)

I do agree that we've taken it too far with airport security. Most of the regulations are utterly pointless and often ignored. As an example, think of the clear plastic bags to store your toiletries in. It isn't enough to just leave your toothpaste visible on top of your suitcase, it has to be visible INSIDE a clear plastic bag.

Having got used to this nonsense in the UK, I once went through security at a central European airport when heading back to Heathrow. Having lost my plastic bag on my trip, I asked the security guard if they had any plastic bags I could use. He pointed to his colleague and told me to ask him. This colleague was placed AFTER the security scanners. This airport had the exact same Airport regulation rules as in the UK, and all the security posters told me to use the bags, but they were obviously less anal about it. I just smiled, thanked the guy and didn't bother.

Re:Passenger can opt out... (4, Insightful)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058034)

Terrorism is a way of warfare through fear. The US has already lost this war (TSA, PATRIOT and the general reduction in civil rights). The EU just makes sure we don't lose it as well.
Correct me if and where I am wrong, for this is not my field of study.

Sometimes they get it right (4, Interesting)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057128)

In between ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest, sometimes they do something right. Thanks EU :-)

Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane? There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (3, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057138)

Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057212)

Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does?

And that's why despite everything, I prefer being in the EU.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1, Interesting)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058248)

Despite everything, I think the EU is still the best place to live in the world.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (4, Informative)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057228)

Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.

Are you American? And are you claiming that freedom and citizens rights are an American invention? Because I am European, and we had such Freedom when you were just a couple of tiny villages we like to call colonies, and when the majority of the native Americans were still alive and thriving.

I'll give an example: the Dutch fight for freedom in the 16th/17th century. Already in the 15th century, the Dutch were free. Amsterdam was rules by citizens, not by a nobleman or clergyman. Citizens. And America hadn't even been discovered. And this idea spread throughout the entire country, which rebelled against the religious oppressive Spanish and became free.

Or how about the French revolution? English parliament? You do know that democracy was already in use in the ancient Greek times, do you?

If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057310)

Well shit, son. I'm European and I share any disdain you may have for this American sense of superiority. However, the truth is that the US is the only country on earth (except very small island nations and places like that) where (in theory) the government can't expropriate your property for public interest, where you can have guns and where no speech is restricted. Sure, they are slowly becoming a democracy and these rights have been eroded during the 20th century, but the point is that at a particular time in history, American citizens had a set of right that no other nation in history had had before (at least for such a long time), so yeah, I recognize the existence of such thing as "American ideals", no need to take that away from them.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057534)

Uhh, you haven't heard of the American Eminent Domain laws have you? That is used to grab property and gun control laws are rife in most states. 'Live Free or Die' only applies to Wisconsin. The 'underground railway' has indeed been running for centuries From the USA To Canada, not the other way around.

The Statue of Libertas in New York, was a present from a Frenchman (G. Eiffel) and was probably meant as a joke...

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057760)

The Acadians might beg to differ with regards to Canada.

And every year more people move from Canada to the USA than from the USA to Canada (and if we talk per capita the difference becomes much larger).

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058006)

While it's true that the Brits did expel most of the Acadians when they took over the maritimes, most of the Acadians came back and resettled under British rule. There's a reason that New Brunswick is the only province in the country that officially recognizes both French and English as official languages. Frankly, the Brits should have done the same thing to Quebec... we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of stupid problems caused by morons trying to rewrite history had that actually happened.... Quebec actually believes that they were treated worse than the Acadians when the Brits won the war....

Re:Sometimes they get it right (5, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057540)

where (in theory) the government can't expropriate your property for public interest

Eminent domain.
Kelo v. City of New London decision.
Asset forfeiture (especially coupled with drug excuse).

Re:Sometimes they get it right (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38058118)

I know perfectly what eminent domain is, now why don't you take a look to what I wrote?

>> where (in theory) the government can't expropriate your property for *public interest*

Wikipedia:

>James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term "public use" rather than "public purpose", "public interest", or "public benefit".

You see, when it comes to rights, the difference is in the details my dear. Take my country Spain for example, we supposedly have "separation of rights", but in truth, we elect the legislative every 4 years, and the legislative names the leaders of the executive and the judicial in session. So the result if that the three powers are always in the same party and we never have separation of powers.

There's a difference between the eminent domain as it's practiced in the US and what we have here. I live in the country, and about 3 years ago a poor farmer that lives nearby in a small house decided to build a wall cause rabbits are a problem. His house got expropriated and then demolished for "public interest" reasons, specifically, "cultural reasons". Turns out this zone is "protected" and you can only build walls with volcanic rocks (which is the traditional style). - Picture: http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1566/200905/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1566-499367.jpg this is the Canary Islands btw- Now, since most of the volcanic soil is protected the volcanic rock is very expensive, this guy couldn't afford it and took a risk, so he got expropriated, for fucking aesthetic reasons. This is the difference between "public use" and "public interest".

So, please tell me, do you picture this happening in the US? The way the US is going it wouldn't surprise me that shit like this has happened in the 20th century, but I doubt very much stuff like this happened *under the full protection of the law* before FDR times.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058294)

So, please tell me, do you picture this happening in the US? The way the US is going it wouldn't surprise me that shit like this has happened in the 20th century, but I doubt very much stuff like this happened *under the full protection of the law* before FDR times.

Did you read the case the grandparent cited? Kelo v. City of New London [wikipedia.org] upheld (at the supreme court level) the right of the state to use eminent domain laws to transfer ownership of land between private parties. This ruling means that any use that can possibly be justified - however vaguely - as serving the public interest is legal according to the fifth amendment.

If your argument is that the USA has a bit of paper that protects your rights, but doesn't enforce it, and is therefore good, then I think you won't find many supporters...

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057572)

where no speech is restricted

Indeed, in America free speech is much more protected than in Europe. But you have to be careful even there. Revealing certain secrets can cost you death penalty.

the government can't expropriate your property for public interest

You mean that if a city needs to build an highway, and there's a single house standing in its way, and its owner doesn't want to sell it, then the highway will have to make a 180-degrees arc around that house? I'm surprised - if things worked this way in my country, then we couldn't build any public infrastructure.

where you can have guns

Really, you can have guns in most countries. In fact, I don't know a single country where you can't. (And I still have to be convinced that it's a good idea...)

Sure, they are slowly becoming a democracy and these rights have been eroded during the 20th century

I think they actually improved during the 20th century. Think about the concentration camps for japanese Americans in the 40s, or mccarthyims in the 50s, or the various racial-based laws they had until the 60s. I don't think any of these would be possible today.

They still have a problem understanding that rights are universal and not bound to the physical boundaries of their country. For example, in 2003 ten CIA agents kidnapped a person in Italy and flew him into Egypt where he was tortured. I don't think such behaviour would be accepted inside the USA. And by the way, many details of this story are known because of the leaked Wikileaks cables, for which an American citizen is currently risking his life.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057616)

Every single thing you wrote about how great the US is is wrong. Categorically, demonstrably wrong. You are talking about "enlightenment ideals", not American ideals, and they started firmly in Europe.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (2)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058032)

The problem is, most Americans have never heard of Locke these days, even though the so-called "American Ideals" are basically a restatement of the ideas he put on paper in the 16th century, and were acknowledged to be so by the founding fathers of his country.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057774)

Great. It's also the only western country where the government agencies and their subsidiaries can torture you and you cannot sue them for that [nytimes.com] .

Re:Sometimes they get it right (2)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058024)

you can have guns

You say that as if it was a great thing. What is so cool about everyone in a country with a nine-digit population (which statistically makes the percentage of insane people millions) being able to have deadly weapons with them at all times?

Personally, in that regard I feel much more secure in my country (which is in the EU, by the way) because people can carry guns if: (a) they work for the police, (b) they work for the army (and then not at all times) or (c) has been life-threatened, and a judge decides the threat is serious. All of them have to pass an exam to assess their suitability to carry guns, kind of ensures his/her sanity. Add to that another special permit for sports, which does also require an examination, and allows only for certain classes of weapons and ammunitions. Net result? No guns in the streets. Almost no deaths by gunfire. When there is a shot in the street, it hits the news because it's so rare.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057592)

Weird. I read the OP as saying "America's ideals are freedom and equality, but in practice there is a lot left to be desired" and not "Freedom and civil rights are American inventions!"

-s

Re:Sometimes they get it right (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057640)

Because I am European, and we had such Freedom when you were just a couple of tiny villages we like to call colonies, and when the majority of the native Americans were still alive and thriving.

Translation: "Though we share the same ancestors, I chanced to be born on the same continent as them, and thus their accomplishments are mine, not yours! Back then, you were living in small towns that our mutual ancestors set up, which is supposed to be belittling, though I'm not quite clear on how. Around that time, our mutual ancestors butchered millions of indigenous people around the globe, but that particular accomplishment I'll lay at your doorstep, because I don't want any part of that bit of history."

There ain't no arrogance like European arrogance.

And FYI, the French revolution came long after the American one. You'd have done better to talk about the French enlightenment, and better still to learn history before lecturing on it.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (4, Interesting)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058052)

And FYI, the French revolution came long after the American one. You'd have done better to talk about the French enlightenment, and better still to learn history before lecturing on it.

You do realize that the American revolution was actually a French revolution, right? Bought and paid for by the French, won by virtue of the fact that the British were too busy beating up the French, and led by military leaders who were trained by a French general (an openly gay one, at that). The Germans had a hand in providing some of the funding and training as well (which is why the language of commerce in the US was very nearly German, not English), but basically, if it weren't for the French providing a distraction for the English back in Europe, the American revolution never would have succeeded. Don't believe me? Look up the campaign from 1812-1814, when Madison decided to annex Canada. The story about why the White House is painted white came from that war....

Re:Sometimes they get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057952)

Already in the 15th century, the Dutch were free. Amsterdam was rules by citizens, not by a nobleman or clergyman.

Keep telling yourself that...

should have used a different tone (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058242)

If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.

+1 Excellent use of pre-emptive after-the-fact diplomacy! :-)

Re:Sometimes they get it right (3, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057258)

Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057302)

Eh? It's the other way round I'm afraid. The french were heavily influenced by what happened in America. Check the dates!

Re:Sometimes they get it right (3, Interesting)

nickco3 (220146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057500)

Eh? It's the other way round I'm afraid. The french were heavily influenced by what happened in America. Check the dates!

The US Bill of Rights was not adopted until August 21, 1789. These are all amendments, remember, for some reason they didn't make it into the original document.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057742)

The reason is that the founders basically said that "All rights not in this document go to its citizens and can be further adjusted by its state governments" but some states were worried that there wasn't a "Bill of Rights." The founders initially resisted because they felt like it would limit rights because it would make it seem like you get these rights but not others.

Which is basically what has happened. If it's not in the Bill of Rights, you really have to fight for it to be considered a "right." Not only that, but the federal government size/scope exploded upon the "interstate commerce" line being interpreted that the federal government basically gets to do everything it wants. We have totally warped what the original design of the USA was and now we have a dominating federal government with very little flexibility and power still passed to the states.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058308)

Everyone thought they were so fundamental and obvious that they didn't need to be stated, and they didn't want to create the impression that those were the ONLY rights reserved for the people....

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057830)

They are related, and both based upon the same enlightenment ideals. I dare say that the US was initially a lot more successful at implementing them, however. The rule of terror and the various emperors weren't exactly what the enlightenment thinkers had in mind.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057306)

I read this a lot of times, but repetition doesn't make bullshit right.
According to Wikipedia: "The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787" and we all know the French Revolution started with the assault on the Bastille on July 14th, 1789. So how can a piece of written paper borrow ideals from a revolution that started almost 2 years later?

Both the French Revolution and the US Constitution are products of the Enlightenment Era or Age of Reason as it's also called.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057350)

You do realise that IDEALS of French revolution were stated before the revolution actually happened?

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

nickco3 (220146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057510)

I read this a lot of times, but repetition doesn't make bullshit right.
According to Wikipedia: "The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787" and we all know the French Revolution started with the assault on the Bastille on July 14th, 1789. So how can a piece of written paper borrow ideals from a revolution that started almost 2 years later?

Both the French Revolution and the US Constitution are products of the Enlightenment Era or Age of Reason as it's also called.

The US Bill of Rights was not adopted until August 21, 1789. They were passed by amendment, remember, they didn't make it into the original document.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057340)

Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.

Hé, les américains! disparaissez de ma pelouse!

+5 LOL (1)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057664)

Hé, les américains! disparaissez de ma pelouse!

Where are mod points when you really need them?

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057274)

Being from Denmark, a country where we actually get to vote on new EU treaties, I used to vote no. But I'm starting to think that voting yes might be a better idea, not because I think the EU is a good idea, but because time and time again, we see the EU limiting the evil that our own politicians come up with.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (4, Informative)

nickco3 (220146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057474)

It may shock you to learn this, but your home country's stated ideals are all European in origin.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057696)

We are all Africans! [richarddawkins.net]

Now please calm down, and stop crediting continents with the inventions of ideals (yes, I'm an African anonymous coward!).

Re:Sometimes they get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057752)

Who gives a flying fuck where it comes from? Do you think "what would we ever do without the Arabs" whenever you write down some numbers?

The truth of the matter is that there's now a legal framework for installing full body scanners at airports, which means that full body scanners will be installed at airports, and there's hardly a chance of reversing this development. It's an erosion of our rights, not a protection thereof. Your choice, if you want to travel internationally, has been reduced to subjecting yourself to a degrading full body scan or being singled out for refusing to be scanned and being extensively groped instead. How is that anything to be proud of? It's a fucking disgrace!

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

nickco3 (220146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058192)

Who gives a flying fuck where it comes from? Do you think "what would we ever do without the Arabs" whenever you write down some numbers?

Of course not. However, if someone here posted that the Arabs were doing a better job of implementing our number system than we were, I would call them out on their error.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057770)

The EU has some really good ideals, but at times really crappy implementation. In the US the original really good ideas seem pretty much dead.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057926)

The US enshrines freedom of speech but it doesn't enshrine an individual's right to privacy. The EU does via the Directive on Data Protection so it offers a lot more protections to individuals. It prevents some of the abuses that we see mentioned in the US. e.g. companies reading their employees private email without permission, personal information being used outside of its stated purpose, or being sold and merged without a user's permission, etc. The US does have some protections in place around some particular areas, e.g. personal health information, HIPAA and protections to curb nuisance caused by personal data such as junk faxes, telemarketers. But its nothing compared to Europe.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (3, Insightful)

Goth Biker Babe (311502) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057964)

I have one thing to say about who's representing who's ideals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta [wikipedia.org]

Remember that the Pilgrim Fathers left England because they wanted less religious freedom. They wanted everyone to follow their brand.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057230)

In between ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest, sometimes they do something right. Thanks EU :-)

Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane? There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.

Your statement doesn't make sense. The EU is nothing but the member states, and its bodies are just representatives from countries. So it is the member states doing the things you say: "The member states ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and the member states destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest".

If not all the participating countries would agree and sign a agreement for each action taken, nothing would happen!

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057612)

Brussels gets more control, and more power, and the member states all have to walk in line. It is less and less possible to have large differences in laws and regulations between the member states. That's what I meant to say. Sorry if you didn't understand me straight away.

Participating countries are often put under enormous pressure to sign some new laws that they are against (but that the majority is in favor of). In addition, the EU has grabbed a bucketload of power with the Lisbon treaty.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

f()rK()_Bomb (612162) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057668)

Why is this a problem though, national borders are a stupid concept anyways, if we ever want to achieve a united world government you need to push people to do things they don't realise are good for them.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057292)

Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane?

Well, Mr IWantToBringAWaterBottle, you know that water can be split in oxygen and hydrogen, right ?
And you know that hydrogen is highly explosive, especially when combined with oxygen.
But what you apparently fail to see is that the proportions of oxygen and hydrogen you get by splitting water are the exact proportions that, when combined, cause a big boom.
We shouldn't allow water in planes, I tell you.

There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.

Why save money when the purpose of these safety measures is to save lives of children ?

Re:Sometimes they get it right (2)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057484)

People are made (partly) of water, while splitting it would end their life. It has been demonstrated that terrorists are willing to end their lives for their cause, so if you limit their availability of water they might simply go on and split their own water.
I say: ban humans on planes!

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057530)

>We shouldn't allow water in planes, I tell you.

Humans are 60-70% water aren't they? We really need a way to dehydrate folks before they board the planes. I propose feeding people to a giant sugarcane crusher, as soon as they clear security!

(Laugh if you must, this will probably soon be implemented by folks who brought us the arrest-pilot-for-mentioning-that-searching-pilots-for-weapons-is-stupid-since-they-can-crash-planes-anyways and kick-kid-off-plane-for-reading-book-with-bomb-image-on-cover!!! you never know!)

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057678)

I propose feeding people to a giant sugarcane crusher, as soon as they clear security!

This way might work [youtube.com]

Re:Sometimes they get it right (1)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057324)

The Union cannot legally seize any power from the member states. The Union is formed on voluntary conferral of powers by the member states.

Re:Sometimes they get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38058062)

In between ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest, sometimes they do something right. Thanks EU :-)

Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane? There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.

Water - in fact many liquids will be allowed, once they have the scanners available. They are working on it.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2010/gb20100430_265233.htm
http://www.gatwick-airport-guide.co.uk/blog/2010/11/water-bottles-to-be-allowed-on-flights-again/

Although the Americans don't like the idea:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/05/eu-relax-aeroplane-liquids-ban

I wish more people.... (4, Insightful)

surfdaddy (930829) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057184)

....would opt out. I'm not an easily paranoid type, but I resent getting x-rayed for non-medical reasons. It's apparent that the correct research has not been done on the safety, and even if the chances of risk are slim, why take the chance? It's reactive security anyway. Opting out is my own little method of civil disobedience. If everybody went for the pat-down the whole system would collapse and they would have to abandon those damn xray scanners.

Re:I wish more people.... (5, Interesting)

gulikoza (1087283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057370)

I opted out at the JFK flying to Paris last month. The TSA agents were very professional, the pat-down wasn't as bad as advertised here sometimes (TBH, I've gotten more invasive pat-downs at some concerts or other public events...not related to airports at all!). They even took and carried all my carry-ons from the x-ray machine to the table so I had plenty of time to put everything together (laptop...) after the pat-down. I hate it when you have to rush, putting on the shoes and belt, storing laptop.... while people are waiting behind you at the carry-on x-ray.

Re:I wish more people.... (5, Funny)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057542)

I wish more people would opt out

I did. I just opted out of flying to the US altogether.

Re:I wish more people.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057838)

Already did that 9 years ago, no way I'm ever going to fly to the US again under any circumstance, even if it means cancelling a business meeting. These so called security measures are completely ridiculous. How can any sort of government disallow bringing a plastic bottle of water on an airplane, but still allow it when it's in a sealed plastic bag, all with a straight face?

Re:I wish more people.... (0)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058264)

For which the US is appreciative.

We have enough people here or coming here that don't like it, don't need more.

Thanks!

Ah the supreme irony.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057224)

Isn't it ironic that the country that epouses individuality above all and has and endemic "fear" of government is the one being fucked over security, while the europeans show a little bit of rational thought on this whole issue ?
And for the note, we had had over the last 4 decades terrorism in europe, and we have coped to live with it. What did you say ? Our societies didn't collpase and we sure as hell didn't transform in some kind of paranoid security state.
That 1997 Escape from New York was prophetic to a level you yankees can't even seem to fathom anymore.
Enjoy your prison guys.

Re:Ah the supreme irony.... (3, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057348)

It's partly because, of course, the Europeans are a number of otherwise independent states so it's like a democracy on an international scale - chances are that SOMEONE will kick up a fuss about something that they disagree with and concessions will have to be made (e.g. the UK still isn't in the Euro for various reasons, Germany doesn't want to be involved in more Greek bailouts etc.).

When you have internal opposition on the scale of national governments, it's a bit more even and controlled than when you have only internal opposition that consists of singular people (who, history has shown, can be corrupt, swayed or just chosen so that they are all of a certain age / mindset).

That said, I've never seen a country less free than America. The only sad fact is that they don't notice it. At least the Chinese KNOW where they are (whether they care or not is another matter) but the US just don't seem to understand what they are doing to themselves and what they are letting slip under their noses. So long as they have their guns and their god, they seem perfectly happy to let a multitude of sins pass through with their approval. Hell, they were close to getting national healthcare and they managed to balls that up too.

And the Americans I've spoken to in person just don't get this... they don't understand that, actually, the stereotype of an American that doesn't know or cares what happens beyond its borders is a little more than just a stereotype. They don't care that, even today, their government imprisons and (still probably) tortures people who haven't gone on trial by doing it on foreign soil. That's "freedom" to them, because it's applied to a different type of person - non-Americans. Try to move on a guy from sitting on Wall Street, though, and it makes the news for days on end. When they show the Olympics you only see Americans winning and *NOTHING* else.

America has many problems, like just about every other country in the world, but it's like those countries that call themselves The Democratic Republic Of, or the People's Republic Of, etc. They are anything but. Land of the Free? Yeah, Land of the Free so long as you stay within our borders, have enough money for healthcare, and never ask for anything we don't want to give you.

Re:Ah the supreme irony.... (2)

nickco3 (220146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057610)

It's partly because, of course, the Europeans are a number of otherwise independent states so it's like a democracy on an international scale - chances are that SOMEONE will kick up a fuss about something that they disagree with and concessions will have to be made

Actually, the European Parliament has a much better record of standing up for citizens rights than the Member Governments, who are usually the villians in such arguments.

Re:Ah the supreme irony.... (0)

Elky Elk (1179921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38058300)

Indeed. No-one is more helplessly enslaved than someone who thinks he is free.

All for them (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057548)

To be honest, as long as these scanners aren't misused (which these regulations are supposed to prevent), I'm all for them. If there's one thing I hate about flying, it's going through security. Queuing up, taking your shoes off, emptying your pockets, rushing through only to be searched anyway, it's fucking awful and if these scanners mean I'm more able to just walk straight through, I'm all for it.

Re:All for them (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38058288)

To be honest, as long as these scanners aren't misused (which these regulations are supposed to prevent), I'm all for them. If there's one thing I hate about flying, it's going through security. Queuing up, taking your shoes off, emptying your pockets, rushing through only to be searched anyway, it's fucking awful and if these scanners mean I'm more able to just walk straight through, I'm all for it.

They won't mean that you can just walk straight through, at least not in an EU airport.

You will still be forced to remove your jacket, belt, shoes and watch. you will still be forced to unpack your laptop and your toiletries (and you had better make sure your toiletries are in the regulation sized bottes and a clear bag!). You will still be forced to walk through the metal detector than is programmed to go off randomly. You will still be subjected to random swabbings of said laptop and toiletries.

The only diffrence is that after doing that you would THEN be asked to go through the perv scanner.

separate scanners for ladies and gentelmen (1)

Bigos (857389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057808)

If a scanner can show your body will there be a chance that a woman can opt out and go through a scanner only for ladies?

ta30 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38057884)

another 5pecial in eternity...Romeo p0or dead last

OK, X-Rays are banned (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38057962)

But what about terahertz radio imagers, which also might be hazardous?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?