- #71
JaredJames
- 2,818
- 22
Out of curiousity, let's say that they ban this technology. Six months down the line a bomber gets on an aircraft and blows it up taking all 400 passengers with him. Through investigation they find the bomb was strapped to the guys chest and could have been detected via the full body scans.
How many people would then complain to (and possibly sue) the government for failing to instal these scanners (or some other similarly worded complaint)? How many people would be mad because we had the means to prevent the disaster but didn't use it?
People want protection but for some reason they don't want to be 'put out' in order to get it.
I believe in the UK, the people viewing the scans are isolated from the public. They don't get the chance to match images to the individual.
I've seen this a few times, where people complain about some new technology or system and it ends up being removed. Then when something occurs which could have been avoided by having said technology they are up in arms over it not being used and seem to forget why this is the case (I'm trying to find the link to the case I'm thinking of).
I'm not saying this is a reason for every new piece of technology to be implemented, but if people don't want something such as the full body scanners to happen for whatever reason, they need to be prepared to accept that if an incident occurs which they could have prevented then they have no right to be annoyed or sue in retaliation to personal injury / loss.
How many people would then complain to (and possibly sue) the government for failing to instal these scanners (or some other similarly worded complaint)? How many people would be mad because we had the means to prevent the disaster but didn't use it?
People want protection but for some reason they don't want to be 'put out' in order to get it.
I believe in the UK, the people viewing the scans are isolated from the public. They don't get the chance to match images to the individual.
I've seen this a few times, where people complain about some new technology or system and it ends up being removed. Then when something occurs which could have been avoided by having said technology they are up in arms over it not being used and seem to forget why this is the case (I'm trying to find the link to the case I'm thinking of).
I'm not saying this is a reason for every new piece of technology to be implemented, but if people don't want something such as the full body scanners to happen for whatever reason, they need to be prepared to accept that if an incident occurs which they could have prevented then they have no right to be annoyed or sue in retaliation to personal injury / loss.