RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security?

RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:17:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Whatever is thought of to counter the terrorist threat will be got around, it is as simple as that. Perhaps parallels can be drawn with the criminal world, in no matter how good your security becomes, if someone really wants to access your privacy, they will gain access. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that if a human mind creates something, then a human mind can break something. Now maybe it is those that wish to become terrorists, or train terrorists are fully aware of security, and what is changing, it is a challenge to them, to find a way to achieve their aim, the kudos in the eyes of their supporters being they achieved what they did and they foiled the security set up, even if they did not achieve their aim, they still got through the security which gives increased motivation to other would be terrorists. How many aircraft terrorists have been found to be thick, from what I understand, they all tend to have been university qualified, that shows intellect and there the ability to think. What would be better to avoid these attacks, is address the problem that is creating the terrorist in the first place or we are all going to have to succumb to loss of rights if we wish to travel by aircraft. I believe its too late to look at what is causing the creation of terrorists. Al boy has already declared he will follow and attack the US at every chance. Doesnt sound like a man ready and willing to make peace.

Aneirin -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:26:33 PM)
In islam, it is considered honourable if clemency is performed, if bin Laden, if he still exists is a true muslim, then he will be open to acts of clemency if his enemy made positive moves towards righting the wrongs he believes they have committed. But in answer to the body scanner and the children issue, here is a link to an article about their planned use at Manchester airport ; http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/naked-airport-scanners-in-child-porn-uproar-20091016-h02h.html The comment made by the Manchester Airport spokeswoman about the images not being erotic, is open to interpretation and if an image is shown on a computer screen, then it is held in the computer memory. Furthermore, in the case of children or even celebrities, what is to stop unscrupulous vdu operators using mobile phone photography to photograph on screen images.

kdsub -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:39:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Whatever is thought of to counter the terrorist threat will be got around, it is as simple as that. Perhaps parallels can be drawn with the criminal world, in no matter how good your security becomes, if someone really wants to access your privacy, they will gain access. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that if a human mind creates something, then a human mind can break something. Now maybe it is those that wish to become terrorists, or train terrorists are fully aware of security, and what is changing, it is a challenge to them, to find a way to achieve their aim, the kudos in the eyes of their supporters being they achieved what they did and they foiled the security set up, even if they did not achieve their aim, they still got through the security which gives increased motivation to other would be terrorists. How many aircraft terrorists have been found to be thick, from what I understand, they all tend to have been university qualified, that shows intellect and there the ability to think. What would be better to avoid these attacks, is address the problem that is creating the terrorist in the first place or we are all going to have to succumb to loss of rights if we wish to travel by aircraft. I agree with you completely...but in the mean time we cannot just give up and let them kill us. There will be a constant battle to keep us safe. New techniques will be needed in the future to counter new threats. And there is one thing you could be wrong on...that there is a solution between these extremely opposed ideologies if we only try harder. That is why over the history of mankind there has been war…and justifiable wars at that. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:41:31 PM)
The comment made by the Manchester Airport spokeswoman about the images not being erotic, is open to interpretation and if an image is shown on a computer screen, then it is held in the computer memory. Furthermore, in the case of children or even celebrities, what is to stop unscrupulous vdu operators using mobile phone photography to photograph on screen images. They are there to work, not make personal phone calls. Why do they need their mobile phone when on the job? Its a security job... not unlike any other security job. They should be held to higher standards of accountability. As far as maintaining a record on the computer, the hard drive doesnt need to be accessable by the operators themselves... and those records can be deleted.

Aneirin -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:48:22 PM)
But computers get maintenance from time to time, and we all know deleted images on hard drives have lead to prosecutions, as to security staff being held to higher standards, well, perhaps they themselves should be scanned prior to going into the vdu booth to ensure they are carrying no recording technology and with that, the person scanning them ad finitum. Where we have laws in place to prevent misuse and abuse of people, those laws have to be all encompassing, as if exceptions are drawn, abuses will happen. Why should anyone trust an airport official over anyone else.

Sanity -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:51:37 PM)
If they'll go through a celebrity's personal items and find something like Viagra, they proven they won't hesitate to use it against him for whatever kind of gain. Money, political gain... whatever. They don't seem like trustworthy people. Maybe we don't pay them enough. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The comment made by the Manchester Airport spokeswoman about the images not being erotic, is open to interpretation and if an image is shown on a computer screen, then it is held in the computer memory. Furthermore, in the case of children or even celebrities, what is to stop unscrupulous vdu operators using mobile phone photography to photograph on screen images. They are there to work, not make personal phone calls. Why do they need their mobile phone when on the job? Its a security job... not unlike any other security job. They should be held to higher standards of accountability. As far as maintaining a record on the computer, the hard drive doesnt need to be accessable by the operators themselves... and those records can be deleted.

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:52:24 PM)
I dont trust anyone over anyone else. Hense this topic. I would not trust a 15 year old traveling alone who is allowed to bypass security scans because of his age. See how that works? Why not scan those who will be in the vdu room? why not video tape them as well? the camera doesnt have to point at the vdu screen since that is not its purpose. There are ways around every objection, if one cares to truly have the system work.

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 9:53:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If they'll go through a celebrity's personal items and find something like Viagra, they proven they won't hesitate to use it against him for whatever kind of gain. Money, political gain... whatever. They don't seem like trustworthy people. Maybe we don't pay them enough. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The comment made by the Manchester Airport spokeswoman about the images not being erotic, is open to interpretation and if an image is shown on a computer screen, then it is held in the computer memory. Furthermore, in the case of children or even celebrities, what is to stop unscrupulous vdu operators using mobile phone photography to photograph on screen images. They are there to work, not make personal phone calls. Why do they need their mobile phone when on the job? Its a security job... not unlike any other security job. They should be held to higher standards of accountability. As far as maintaining a record on the computer, the hard drive doesnt need to be accessable by the operators themselves... and those records can be deleted. That case was totally different, sanity, and you know it. Rush was under court orders at the time. he should have realized he would be stopped and searched.

kdsub -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/30/2009 10:01:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Whatever is thought of to counter the terrorist threat will be got around, it is as simple as that. Perhaps parallels can be drawn with the criminal world, in no matter how good your security becomes, if someone really wants to access your privacy, they will gain access. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that if a human mind creates something, then a human mind can break something. Now maybe it is those that wish to become terrorists, or train terrorists are fully aware of security, and what is changing, it is a challenge to them, to find a way to achieve their aim, the kudos in the eyes of their supporters being they achieved what they did and they foiled the security set up, even if they did not achieve their aim, they still got through the security which gives increased motivation to other would be terrorists. How many aircraft terrorists have been found to be thick, from what I understand, they all tend to have been university qualified, that shows intellect and there the ability to think. What would be better to avoid these attacks, is address the problem that is creating the terrorist in the first place or we are all going to have to succumb to loss of rights if we wish to travel by aircraft. Yes my friend but we can't be so paranoid we cannot function...there are always dangers in life. We must address the now as well as the future...I agree we must honestly continue to try and find a political solution...personally I don't think there will be one. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:04:51 AM)
I adore women like this... quote: The idea of an electronic strip search did not bother Judy Yeager, 62, of Sarasota, Fla., as she prepared to depart Las Vegas. She stood in the full-body scanner Wednesday afternoon and held her arms up as a security official guided her through the gray closet-sized booth. "If it's going to protect a whole airplane of people, who gives a flying you-know-what if they see my boob whatever," Yeager said. "That's the way I feel, honest to God." ................. quote: Critics of the scanners said the option to opt out was not enough. "The question is should they be used indiscriminately on little children and grandmothers," said Republican U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock of California. McClintock co-sponsored a bill approved by the House 310-118 in June prohibiting the use of full body scanners for primary screenings. The bill is pending in the Senate. He said the devices raised serious concerns regarding constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. "There's no practical distinction between a full body scan and being pulled into a side room and being ordered to strip your clothing." To further protect passenger privacy, security officers looking at the images are in a different part of the airport and are not allowed to take any recording devices into the room with them, Trevino said. The images captured by the scanners cannot be stored, transmitted or printed in any way. But the TSA still has some public relations work ahead of it, judging by the reactions of passengers in Albuquerque, N.M., who were worried about what would happen to their images once they were scanned. "Are they going to be recorded or do they just scan them and that's the end of them? How are these TSA people going to be using them? That's a real concern for me," said Courtney Best-Trujillo of Santa Fe, N.M., who was flying to Los Angeles on Wednesday. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_bi_ge/us_airliner_attack_body_scans

Kirata -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:35:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Doesnt seem like it can do cavity scanning, Panda. Yep, he was right. I've been searching through various links. It appears that the medical imaging potential is limited to the dermis, e.g., early detection of skin cancer before any visible signs are apparent. Well fuck. K.

Sanity -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:40:33 AM)
So the same guys who see your entire family naked will then proceed to do a full cavity search on each member, so that we don't have to use that god awful "racial profiling" stuff. ? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Doesnt seem like it can do cavity scanning, Panda. Yep, he was right. I've been searching through various links. It appears that the medical imaging potential is limited to the dermis, e.g., early detection of skin cancer before any visible signs are apparent. Well fuck. K.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:49:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Doesnt seem like it can do cavity scanning, Panda. Yep, he was right. I've been searching through various links. It appears that the medical imaging potential is limited to the dermis, e.g., early detection of skin cancer before any visible signs are apparent. Well fuck. K. Obviously the next step is that we'll have to lay down on a conveyor belt and get sent through an MRI scanner one by one. only that will stop this.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8276016.stm Also if greater scanning comes as a result of this then the authorities are missing the point as to how this person wasn't identified by name.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 9:00:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So, are we trading privacy for security? and is it worth the trade? or does the idea upset you? Can this possibly make you feel safer? It doesn't upset me. In the cosmic scheme of things, if it would get me through customs faster and onto the plane faster, I would volunteer to walk through the scanner. My problem is that this whole effort is basically pointless. It's not going to hugely increase the odds of stopping a terrorist incident. There are myriad studies out there showing how simple it is to get an explosive on an airplane. Tests of security systems at airports have shown that airport security failed to find and prevent something like 60% of the explosives and weapons the test groups were "smuggling" onto airplanes. This is just cosmetic. It's there to make you feel like they're "taking action". So really, I object to being pointlessly inconvenienced as a marketing ploy. The real barrier to terrorists is supposedly the system of passports and visas and the registration methods - which are intended to stop such a person from getting anywhere near an airplane. The failure of that system, especially after the embassy was warned that the guy was 'radicalized' and 'dangerous' is what has most of the intelligence community running around like chickens without their heads. If the stories are true and this guy on a watch list showed up at the last minute with no passport and no luggage and somehow his "handler" got him onto an airplane - no technological security system is going to stop that. That's a failure on the human end.

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 10:12:26 AM)
quote: If the stories are true and this guy on a watch list showed up at the last minute with no passport and no luggage and somehow his "handler" got him onto an airplane - no technological security system is going to stop that. That's a failure on the human end. This i agree with... its human failure... or plain lack of concern for those who are put in charge of security. so why do we accept the mediocracy that has become our security? IS it mediocracy? IS it a lack of caring? IS the fault to be laid at the feet of these men and women?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 10:22:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: If the stories are true and this guy on a watch list showed up at the last minute with no passport and no luggage and somehow his "handler" got him onto an airplane - no technological security system is going to stop that. That's a failure on the human end. This i agree with... its human failure... or plain lack of concern for those who are put in charge of security. so why do we accept the mediocracy that has become our security? IS it mediocracy? IS it a lack of caring? IS the fault to be laid at the feet of these men and women? Tazzy, I hate to sound pedantic, but I think the word you're thinking of is "mediocrity." Like I say, I hate to point that out, but the reason i bring it up is to say that I think you've unintentionally created a brilliant new word - "mediocracy;" an entirely new (and uniquely American) social structure. The world has seen plutocracies, aristocracies, democracies, even technocracies, and until recently, the American social system was often described as a meritocracy. And now America has evolved into the world's first mediocracy; a social system in which status and power are awarded on the basis of mediocrity. And god help us all.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 10:29:59 AM)
quote: This is just cosmetic. It's there to make you feel like they're "taking action". So really, I object to being pointlessly inconvenienced as a marketing ploy. Exactly. Airport security is a facade for the public perception. Traveling often I shake my head at the security breaches I observe. The problem is not akin to finding a needle in a haystack. It's finding a specific needle in a haystack size pile of them. However the problem is that the general public does not want honesty from their government. Nobody running on a platform of complete honesty would ever be elected. In this case they would rather have the perception of security rather than be told we are lucky that occurrences such as this attempted bombing don't happen regularly. Effective security would require too many compromises to accepted political correctness. With all the additional post 9/11 procedures in place only one proved to be effective and I don't think enough attention has been given to the only reason this attempt failed. Prior to 9/11 most passengers would never think to take some personal responsibility for their own security. On 9/11 by many accounts, the passengers could have taken some action, in one case they did and Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" most likely prevented one of the 9/11 targets from being hit. This time - it seems that quite a few took on personal responsibility and the result saved a lot of lives. Unfortunately unless a life/death situation in involved most don't like the idea of personal accountability and would prefer to rely on a benevolent government nanny to protect them, cradle to grave and while in the air. This situation proves how silly it is to rely on that assumed entitlement.

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 10:30:37 AM)
LOL.. thats completely possible, Panda [:D] i have often said i am not the best speller of some words... but i can type off bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in no time flat!

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 10:40:57 AM)
You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize how totally pointless it will be in the end. Think about it - how did the first hijackers go about taking over airplanes? Simple. They just got on board the plane with a gun in their pocket or in their carry-on. How did airlines react? By searching people before they got on the plane. So, when was the last time you heard of anyone trying to get on board a plane with a gun in their pocket? You don't hear about it anymore, because people wised up and realized there was no point in trying. They came up with other tactics for taking over or bringing down airplanes. And this will be no different. On the one hand, yeah, i suppose you have to do it just to make it as difficult as possible for them - I mean, you can't very well have people just marching onto a plane with a bomb in their pants if there's a way to prevent that. Even though nobody tries to sneak guns onto planes anymore, you still have to screen for guns, right? But at the same time, it's not really going to stop the smart ones, or even most of the dumb ones. Like I said earlier, the smart ones will just adapt by smuggling explosives onto the plane stuffed up their asses. So, how will the airlines react? Probably cavity searches. But the bad news is, even cavity searches won't work. If we start doing cavity searches of every passenger, the next step will be to do what heroin smugglers have done for decades to avoid cavity searches - they'll swallow the bombs. And yes, there's no reason at all that a suicide bomber couldn't swallow enough explosives to bring down a plane. You can easily swallow as much as a half-pound of plastic explosive in small packets, and a small chemical detonator as well. It wouldn't be comfortable to do, but from a technological standpoint, it's really not hard at all. You'd only need a detonator on one of the small packets, and when it goes off, sympathetic detonation of all the other packets in the bomber's stomach would blow the side of the plane out if he's sitting in a window seat. There's no reason at all that this couldn't be done, and the only technology that would stop it would be a full-body X-ray or MRI of every passenger. At what point do we stop?

tazzygirl -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 10:57:38 AM)
would not require a full body xray... just an abdominal one... not saying that is a viable option.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875