Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Any possibility that GE has a financial stake in the company/companies that produce 'Body Scanners'?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 11:31 AM
Original message
Any possibility that GE has a financial stake in the company/companies that produce 'Body Scanners'?
They sure were promoting them like carnival barkers on MSNBC this morning...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. GE makes the air puffers, not sure about the scanners.
But I'd not be surprised if they have a stake in it - GE does imaging well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. No I don't think they make the scannners.
According to my husband who works for GE (in medical imaging), they are getting out of the security business altogether. The puffers don't work and nobody likes to buy them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. Those who are worried about their privacy should not use airports
In this age where terrorists are attempting to exploit any lax in security, privacy must not be of concern. If GE does make these machines more power to them. They deserve the contracts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I agree with Ben.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Same here!
:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don Caballero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Franklin lived in a different time, a simpler time
We face an enemy that hides in the shadows and will strike at any time. I am willing to bet Franklin would be for the surveillance society we live in today. He would advocate safety over privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Perhaps you should read up on Mr. Franklin IF you truly believe what you're saying...
Sounds as though you know very little about the man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Ridiculous false dilemma.
Edited on Wed Dec-30-09 12:49 PM by backscatter712
The feds don't want to do the job the right way.

Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to sacrifice privacy, dignity and civil liberties to get security. The Rethugs push this false dilemma on us over and over, and too many of us fall for it. Now that the Crotch Bomber incident happened, the Rethugs are just creaming their pants in anticipation of more of their authoritarianism. Really, the only thing the full-body scanners are going to do is get the next terrorist to stuff his bomb in his rectum...

Can the virtual strip search really do more than a well-trained officer observing the crowd looking for sketchy behavior? Counterintelligence (such as what didn't get passed on to the appropriate authorities in the case of the Crotch Bomber) can suss out terrorist plots long before they make it to the airport. These kinds of tactics are far more effective, and far less intrusive upon civil liberties than the digital strip search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-30-09 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. I have no doubt Michael Chertoff has a financial stake in them,
as part of his "security consultation" business - just listen to this interview on NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122018593
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC