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

mnottertail -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 10:58:30 AM)
OK, bend over and spread 'em. i'M LOOKING for explosives.

Musicmystery -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 11:01:19 AM)
quote: So, are we trading privacy for security? No. We're trading privacy (and rights) for the illusion of security. Again. The soles of shoes can be made from explosive the dogs can't smell. No body checks the hamburger bun guy delivering to the airport. Getting objects on a plane just isn't hard. We have Security Theater, and that's all--literally. There's also the reality that there is no way to 100% stop terrorists. Many, even most, OK, but never all. Best thing working for our safety? Most terrorists are incompetent. 9/11 was a glaring exception.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 11:17:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl would not require a full body xray... just an abdominal one... not saying that is a viable option. Sure, but still - at what point do we just decide enough is enough? As a society, and as consumers of the service that airlines provide? Air travel is, to an extent, a necessity in modern society, but it's also a luxury for many consumers of the service. I don't need to fly out to California 3 or 4 times a year; I do it because I enjoy going to California. At what point do I decide that the hassles associated with flying are no longer worth flying as often as i do? The fact is, I'm already at that point. I used to love flying - it wasn't just that i loved to travel; it was actually that I found flying on airplanes a wonderfully enjoyable experience. In just a few years, I've come around 180 degrees, to the point where I absolutely hate flying. The seats are smaller, the food sucks, the customer service sucks, you're packed in tighter than you used to be, the waits are much longer, almost every aspect of flying has become less pleasurable than it was just a few years ago. And a lot of that is the result of measures taken in response to the increased emphasis on security and the costs associated with the increased security. I now find myself sometimes deliberately making the decision to forgo a trip simply because the hassle associated with the trip is more than the trip is worth. I weigh how much fun I'd have if i went against several factors - how much it would cost, how much fun I'd have doing other things here at home if i didn't go, and how much hassle is going to be associated with the flying. And there have been times just in the last year when the "hassle factor" has been enough, in the final analysis, to tip the balance and make me decide to stay home. If flying becomes even more of a pain in the ass, i will definitely be flying even less. I'll still fly, but for shorter vacations, i'll go back to doing what I did when i was young and poor - car trips to various places that are within a half day's or a day's drive. And how many other people will make, or are making right now, that same decision? How many can the airlines afford? They're already operating on a razor-thin profit margin. How many customers can they afford to lose because people just hate to fly? At what point do these extreme security measures become impractical and self-defeating?

subfever -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 11:17:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No. We're trading privacy (and rights) for the illusion of security. Again. The soles of shoes can be made from explosive the dogs can't smell. No body checks the hamburger bun guy delivering to the airport. Getting objects on a plane just isn't hard. We have Security Theater, and that's all--literally. I'll go along with this. quote: There's also the reality that there is no way to 100% stop terrorists. Many, even most, OK, but never all. How many illegal aliens cross the border every day? If they can do it, why couldn't armed terrorists do it... by the dozens? In my opinion, most of these terrorist acts are engineered by the PTB. They're stageshows to keep the average joe in fear and in perceived need of protection by the government. It also provides the PTB with the catalyst to foment war. It's an illusion; taken line, hook, and sinker by most. quote: Best thing working for our safety? Most terrorists are incompetent. 9/11 was a glaring exception. Can't agree with you there. I believe 9/11 was an inside job.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 1:59:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Sure, but still - at what point do we just decide enough is enough? Let me offer an alternative (and equally privacy invasive) option. Some years ago, I held a government security clearance. They did an extensive background check on me. High levels of clearance require a or multiple polygraph tests. At this point, they should be fairly certain that I am not a terrorist. Can I get a special passport or card or have my fingerpinrt scanned at the airport or whatever and bypass the scanner and the ultrasound and the MRI? Could you allow people to volunteer for an equivalent check, and once certified as "safe", allow them to bypass these measures? Then you could have the "you've already been vetted" line at the airport which would move quickly and the "we're not sure about you" line which would require running a multi-hour gauntlet of exhaustive checks. You could offer "pre-certified" only fast flights. I'm not sure about this concept. I haven't really thought it through but I figured I'd offer it up as an alternative. Thoughts?

mnottertail -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 2:13:08 PM)
well, anyone in the military has had some FBI boys sniffing around their anus as well, in this country, you got the BCA could check most people...... And at any sort of change like a McVeigh you could flag it...... But there is problems with knowing where the Oswalds (not that he did it) or the Hinckleys and what not are or how undesireable they are because of interagency inoperabilities and rivalries. but everybody has a passport right? I mean for international travel, and you could do some holographic interpol whatever on it...... But nobody is ever gonna catch those guys that after 30 years of caspar milquetoast existance decide one day to up and wash their shorts in C4 and take out the ex while she is heading to Belize with the new boyfriend in the jumbojet or the supertanker. So, yeah, and the system has to be improved, and some countries arent capable or give a fuck, course, they dont fuck around in the affairs of other countries, leading to this sort of 'random' behavior, so there is that too, to put on the stove. Ron

thornhappy -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 2:17:44 PM)
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. Yep. Frequencies that high just bounce off of you. It's due to (no puns intended) "skin effect".

Brain -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 2:23:49 PM)
1. It doesn't upset me. 2. I feel safer 3. It's worth the trade and I have nothing to hide.

kdsub -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 7:17:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: So, are we trading privacy for security? No. We're trading privacy (and rights) for the illusion of security. Again. The soles of shoes can be made from explosive the dogs can't smell. No body checks the hamburger bun guy delivering to the airport. Getting objects on a plane just isn't hard. We have Security Theater, and that's all--literally. There's also the reality that there is no way to 100% stop terrorists. Many, even most, OK, but never all. Best thing working for our safety? Most terrorists are incompetent. 9/11 was a glaring exception. I agree...you can not stop them 100 percent of the time...but why not get as close as possible...and by the way your other examples...do you really think you know all the security procedures...you think they will make them public...me...you... know little of the workings of security. Why comment on something you know little of as fact? Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 7:34:49 PM)
Butch, NPR has been covering this all week, and is the source of the information. Yes, I believe interviewing experts in charge is a reliable source of information. That we can't stop all terrorists is obvious. We don't even try--some procedures are random, and what procedures we have are already well publicized, so what's the point of that? Here are just a few of the stories I grabbed quickly. You can search for others if you like: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122074160 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122061240 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122034842&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122043015&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122011652&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121992048&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121979955&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121983226&ps=rs

kdsub -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:12:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Butch, NPR has been covering this all week, and is the source of the information. Yes, I believe interviewing experts in charge is a reliable source of information. That we can't stop all terrorists is obvious. We don't even try--some procedures are random, and what procedures we have are already well publicized, so what's the point of that? Here are just a few of the stories I grabbed quickly. You can search for others if you like: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122074160 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122061240 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122034842&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122043015&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122011652&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121992048&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121979955&ps=rs http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121983226&ps=rs We agree again...I love NPR...we have problems...but we can't just give up because the security system is screwed up...and privacy along with the stipulations I stated earlier will make the scanner a useful option no more obtrusive to privacy as a visit to your doctor…less so. Butch

Musicmystery -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:14:39 PM)
I would, however, like to stop spending money on procedures that accomplish nothing but the illusion of doing something.

kdsub -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:22:18 PM)
I think there is enough evidence that the scanners do work...but are not the end all in security...My daughter flies two or three times a week...I want ever possible precaution taken...I don't care the cost. Butch

Arpig -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:29:07 PM)
quote: So, are we trading privacy for security? No, you are trading nothing for the illusion of security. It will not make you appreciably safer, and I fail to see how it would be a major invasion of privacy...so anonymous people will see an electronic scan of you (an anonymous person to them), just one among hundreds, if not thousands that day, and tens of thousands over a week...what's the big deal? quote: and is it worth the trade? No, there is no trade, however as has been pointed out in this thread the determined terrorist will find a way no matter what steps are taken quote: or does the idea upset you? No, and I just don't see anything to be upset by quote: Can this possibly make you feel safer? Marginally, it may catch a few attackers until they figure out how to bypass it, but like I said it won't stop a genuinely determined attack

Musicmystery -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:32:41 PM)
For the billions we spend pretending, we could just subside the sky car and eliminate the airline target. http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_moller_on_the_skycar.html

kdsub -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:35:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery For the billions we spend pretending, we could just subside the sky car and eliminate the airline target. http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_moller_on_the_skycar.html HMMM wonder how many pounds of TNT they could carry? Then they could attack hundreds of targets at the same time...cool idea...like the jetsons.

Musicmystery -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:38:32 PM)
They can do that now. We have planes. Watch the clip. The Skyway is already under construction. People don't actually fly the cars. Seems that would make if far more difficult for terrorists to use them for specific targets.

kdsub -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery They can do that now. We have planes. lol but not as many if everyone drove one to work... That would be good material for A Prairie Home Companion

Musicmystery -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 8:41:50 PM)
And cars are equally capable of carrying explosives. And have.

vincentML -> RE: Invasion of privacy or cost of security? (12/31/2009 9:08:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin When an aircraft can be used as a weapon to attack whoever there will always be a need for security, but what has to be taken into account by the advocates of increased security measures in airports, is where is the cut off point, at what point is the security issues worth more than the comfort of the travelling public. Now if it comes to be all rights, senses of decency and privacy are ripped open in the name of aircraft security, I know I will lessen my air travel, not that I travel much by air anyway these days. If vacation was to be the US, an increase in security to the level that it is a complete hassle to fly there, simply I will go elsewhere. Now I believe I am indicative of many others here, it is not nice nor friendly to be treated as a potential terrorist just for purchasing an airline ticket to visit another country. Just to note, I always get hassle at airports, long hair and individuality make me stick out like a sore thumb. I always get searched and put through the questions, whilst the normal people slide through unchallenged. To my mind, it is within the normal people that security has to look as terrorists on their way to a mission like to travel unnoticed, the oddball is the least of anyone's worries. A way to reduce if not stop these terrorist actions, simple, stop fucking the people of these countries and beliefs off. first bold face: we are there. second bold face: agree

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875