RE: Airport Security (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

servantforuse -> RE: Airport Security (1/9/2010 8:17:23 PM)

It takes a very long time to train just one dog. Most of them don't make the grade. I think it is like 3 out of 100 that actually can be trained to do what needs to be done. When they get it right though, it is un believable what they can do.



tazzygirl -> RE: Airport Security (1/9/2010 8:23:57 PM)

Fran Townsend, a former homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush and a current CNN contributor on national security issues, says the use of dogs in airports should be expanded.

"Dogs tend to be the cheapest, fastest and most reliable explosive detection capacity that we have in this country," Townsend said.

http://cnn.org/2009/TRAVEL/12/30/bomb.sniffing.dogs/index.html

It definitely is an option. Refuse one and get the other... lol... a wet nose in the crotch!



barelynangel -> RE: Airport Security (1/9/2010 8:26:00 PM)

The problem is this is really a time-sensivtive issue. ONCE the scanners are installed its like possession is 9/10ths the law and it will be harder for those who don't want them to get rid of them.

I think what will end up happening is people who refuse to use the scanners will have to submit to a private search. Don't they have that choice for people that if they don't want to go through security they can have a private search?

You all know what will be said about the dogs -- allergies of people.



tazzygirl -> RE: Airport Security (1/9/2010 8:46:11 PM)

yeah, but i thought many already used dogs, just not for personal searches... more for luggage and things like that.



ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Airport Security (1/9/2010 9:18:35 PM)

A couple of notes on the new body scanners:
DHS has stated that these scans will be optional. The alternative will be a thorough pat-down. Choose your poison.
Dogs are very effective but burn-out very quickly, especially when they don't actually find something once in a while.
The Israelis - El Al - perform interviews with every passenger prior to boarding. This will never happen here because it takes time - lots of time. And we're all about convenience.

I would also love to know what people are doing to effect change. The usual "write your congressional rep" just doesn't seem to cut it. I'd love to hear about how someone joined or founded some sort of grass-roots movement that is actually gaining strength.

On the other hand, I don't really care if you rant/rave/whine about something but don't do anything more. Every movement that ever became anything started out as an idea. It just might happen that KittenSol's writtings about the body scanners will spur someone to act. And that act will snowball into something that causes real change in the way airport security is handled.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

~Dave





LafayetteLady -> RE: Airport Security (1/9/2010 9:42:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

The Israelis - El Al - perform interviews with every passenger prior to boarding. This will never happen here because it takes time - lots of time. And we're all about convenience.

~Dave



That issue is not so much about convenience but the number of travelers. I just read an article (which I did look for but can't find) where the fact that Ben Gurion airport is so significantly smaller than most of our US airports, they have the time to do this. It would kind of like be comparing Newark, La Guardia or Kennedy airports to say Allentown airport. The difference in the number of travelers makes the option of interviewing the passenger not feasible. It would be like we have ten thousand passengers to every one hundred of theirs. Quite a difference.

tazzy,

As servantforuse points out, the training is extensive, time consuming and few dogs make the grade. When you consider that to use dogs as an option would require dozens of dogs at every airport, it is a problem.

Add to that allergies as angel pointed out, some people's very real and very strong fear of dogs and it just doesn't seem to be an option. I know some people who are literally terrified of dogs. That would really be an invasion of a person's personal freedom to force them to "face their fear" of dogs. Besides that, while the dogs might not find a bomb, drugs or whatever, I'm sure that their fear reaction could too easily be misinterpreted as "looking suspicious." Likewise, someone could easily blame their "suspicious behavior" on being terrified of the dogs.

So Israel's methods are out because our airports are just too large and have far too many passengers. Dogs aren't going to work because of allergies, fears, cost of training (along with liklihood of the dogs passing muster).

Like Holly, I want all reasonable measure taken to make sure that plane doesn't crash. As someone who had some of the ashes from the towers make it all the way to my area (45 miles away), yes, I'm ok with such a small invasion of privacy. Because on the whole, it is a very small invasion.



heartcream -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 1:15:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

Domiguy, just out of morbid curiosity are you really that much of an ass you keep calling me barely because of same. I mean if that's why you keep doing it please let me know. Or are you that much of a child you keep doing it because you know i don't like it?

It has to be one or the other because you seem intelligent on some occassions which tells me you could understand my request to you. So please let me know which it is.

angel

Asking to be called Angel (rather than barely, which is your nick by the way) reminds me of a woman I am doing a bit of shea butter business with, she calls herself Queen Something Sister Something. All together. It is kind of hard to stop the convo and say, "You know Queen-So-and-so-Sister-blah dont you find it..." I asked her what I ought to call her and she gave me several choices. One of them was "Queen", I could call her Queen. I did not choose this name to call her because it would be too weird for me. Like, not to be rude, but calling you Angel, if I want to address you, is the same sort of thing. Why do I need to call you Angel? I dont feel you that way. If you want to be called that, change your nick so it makes it hard to call you anything else. Barely is the first part of your nick. This is an online forum. Deal with it.

I went to a chat room once and used the first part of some Domme nick, (not Domme bashing, stating the facts only) MsSomething or other and she got all offended I didnt write out her full name in a freaking chat room.

I dont have cojones like domi to call her what the heck I wanted any way, I just sort of laughed at the pretentious bullshit and left. Some random freaking stranger is going to think they can force me to call them some ol made up name? Purrrrlease.

(You called me heartscream, haha kind of funny)

I cant read your posts either, I get lost in all the caps n shit.



heartcream -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 1:20:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

A couple of notes on the new body scanners:
DHS has stated that these scans will be optional. The alternative will be a thorough pat-down. Choose your poison.
Dogs are very effective but burn-out very quickly, especially when they don't actually find something once in a while.
The Israelis - El Al - perform interviews with every passenger prior to boarding. This will never happen here because it takes time - lots of time. And we're all about convenience.

I would also love to know what people are doing to effect change. The usual "write your congressional rep" just doesn't seem to cut it. I'd love to hear about how someone joined or founded some sort of grass-roots movement that is actually gaining strength.

On the other hand, I don't really care if you rant/rave/whine about something but don't do anything more. Every movement that ever became anything started out as an idea. It just might happen that KittenSol's writtings about the body scanners will spur someone to act. And that act will snowball into something that causes real change in the way airport security is handled.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

~Dave





I have been working mightily with much conviction and focus on my loverly Magic Carpets. Persian yanno!

I do all the patting down prior to boarding. "Why ~Dave is that a gun in your pocket? Take it out, is it loaded? Fully loaded?

You may have to leave that with me then. Orrr is it a pickle? I am jonesing for a nice crisp pickle to eat, may I? I love pickles with garlic."



LafayetteLady -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 1:35:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heartcream

Some random freaking stranger is going to think they can force me to call them some ol made up name? Purrrrlease.



So if you were in the business world and someone's name was "Jane Doe" and when you called her "Jane" she told you that she preferred you to call her "Ms. Doe" you feel it would be appropriate to call her whatever you chose?

How completely lacking in social etiquette.

angel didn't DEMAND that he call her that, she politely told him what she preferred. He intentionally ignored it and to continued to call her "barely" not because it was "easier" for him, but for no other reason than to be obnoxious and rude.

Your comparison to "Queen so and so" is not even close to the same thing. "Queen" would be considered an honorific. If someone's name were "Elizabeth" and you felt like calling her "Betty" and she said she preferred to be called by her given name, I guess you would think she is being pretentious and how dare she tell anyone what she prefers to be called. Guess if you met the president, you think it would be appropriate to call him Barack? Or perhaps you feel it appropriate to call Prince Charles "Chuck?" After all, "His Highness" is a bit pretentious.




barelynangel -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 5:38:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heartcream


quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

Domiguy, just out of morbid curiosity are you really that much of an ass you keep calling me barely because of same. I mean if that's why you keep doing it please let me know. Or are you that much of a child you keep doing it because you know i don't like it?

It has to be one or the other because you seem intelligent on some occassions which tells me you could understand my request to you. So please let me know which it is.

angel


Asking to be called Angel (rather than barely, which is your nick by the way) reminds me of a woman I am doing a bit of shea butter business with, she calls herself Queen Something Sister Something. All together. It is kind of hard to stop the convo and say, "You know Queen-So-and-so-Sister-blah dont you find it..." I asked her what I ought to call her and she gave me several choices. One of them was "Queen", I could call her Queen. I did not choose this name to call her because it would be too weird for me. Like, not to be rude, but calling you Angel, if I want to address you, is the same sort of thing. Why do I need to call you Angel? I dont feel you that way. If you want to be called that, change your nick so it makes it hard to call you anything else. Barely is the first part of your nick. This is an online forum. Deal with it.

I went to a chat room once and used the first part of some Domme nick, (not Domme bashing, stating the facts only) MsSomething or other and she got all offended I didnt write out her full name in a freaking chat room.

I dont have cojones like domi to call her what the heck I wanted any way, I just sort of laughed at the pretentious bullshit and left. Some random freaking stranger is going to think they can force me to call them some ol made up name? Purrrrlease.

(You called me heartscream, haha kind of funny)

I cant read your posts either, I get lost in all the caps n shit.





Heartcream you are kidding me right, utterly kidding me? That is such a load of crap i don't know what to say to it. This is a joke because you are a very sad person if your post is anything BUT a joke.

All because i have DISAGREED WITH YOU lol. Talk about spiteful childish behavior. I mean seriously are we in grade school?

deleted the rest of a longer post i did because your post is really unfucking believeable. This is the most childish response i have ever seen from someone on the boards as a whole in the years i have been here and believe me i have seen MUCH childish behavior and even participated in some. This however has taken the cake.

Seriously heartcream, if my posts cause you this much venom lol please hide me.

And i do apologize for your name, i thought an s was in there. I don't fuck with people's nicknames because i respect even if i don't like someone that the name could be sentimental as it is for me or for some women its a name their MASTER'S gave them etc. I use their nickname hopefully without inadvertent typos or how they sign their posts.




thornhappy -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 8:46:12 AM)

meanwhile, back at the ranch...

El Al flies 1.3 million passengers a year.  The US flies over 753 million people a year.  El Al also spends about $77 per passenger for security, and the US spends about $8 per passenger.

There's a cool article explaining the difference in approaches here.



lusciouslips19 -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 9:33:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

i don't do subtle or passive agreesive so my posts can usually be taken at face value as to what they say. I know this is hard for people to understand because many people do employ passive-aggressiveness. I don't. My posts are what they are. To me passive-aggressive is something i have never respected and it is synonmous to me as someone attacking someone from the back or major manipulation. There is no integrity to me in passive-aggressiveness and subtlety is a close second.

You've lost me what am i supposed to being MAYBE wrong about? My opinions? Umm nope, sorry, my opinions haven't changed. So i am not sure what you want from this exchange lol. We both know your only reasons for shaking your finger was not due to your belief in posting non-judgmental or non-accusing posts standard for everyone, but because OF ME, personally. I get it. As i said, you can hide me cause my posting style won't change. AND i am rarely when i do post judgmentally and accusatory the ONLY people to do so in threads. To indicate i am is beyond ridiculous.

angel


angel


But to say that in order to have a strong opinion you must take action is WAY beyond rediculous.
You said, "An opinion without action is just white noise"

That means all beings who wont or cant take action should not have an opinion. Do you get the silliness of this statement?
So If ones paralyzed and cant take action, they should shut up. Children, they have no ability to take action so they should shut up to. If Im sick in a hospital bed, best to be quiet there. After all, without action, you're just "white noise".

I have no problem with your posting style. But just as you're not going to change your "style", neither will I hide you or not call you on it when your hot shit on a silver platter, is really cold turd on a paper plate.



LadyEllen -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 9:36:23 AM)

On the plus side, Muslims find our love of dogs incomprehensible since theyre unclean animals; thus they fear contact with dogs greatly. Since all Muslims are terrorists, (since all terrorists are Muslims), the chance of being touched by a dog should keep our airports free of terrorist threats. Since it is the threat of contact with dogs that will act as a deterrent, there should be no reason to insist all airport security dogs are trained.

Next week; how to keep Jews under control through opening your very own pig farm.

E






lusciouslips19 -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 9:38:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sirsholly

quote:

I detest the way we are all collectively accepting yet another invasion of privacy for bullshit reasons.
Kittin...i just can't shake the thought that if it were my husband or my kids getting on a plane I would want the airline to do everything possible to ensure their safety. If this means invading the privacy of the other travelers, the airlines have my blessing. The kids privacy and hubby's would of course be invaded too, but there is some other wife/mom who wants my family screened so hers will be safe.





I understand this Holly,but I still cant shake the thought that its not more security thats needed, its enforcing ones that are there. It also seems that its not tighter security on us but making sure agencies are working together that hasnt been corrected. When your right hand doesnt know what the left ones doing, thats a major problem that no amount of scanning will repair. Its the agencies themselves that should be held accountable.



lusciouslips19 -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 9:41:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

On the plus side, Muslims find our love of dogs incomprehensible since theyre unclean animals; thus they fear contact with dogs greatly. Since all Muslims are terrorists, (since all terrorists are Muslims), the chance of being touched by a dog should keep our airports free of terrorist threats. Since it is the threat of contact with dogs that will act as a deterrent, there should be no reason to insist all airport security dogs are trained.

Next week; how to keep Jews under control through opening your very own pig farm.

E






Im jewish and I eat pork. You cant control me!!!



LadyEllen -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 9:43:38 AM)

Stop spoiling my ignorant racist blatherings LL!

E



barelynangel -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 9:48:56 AM)

LuciousLips, i really don't give a fuck this is getting to the point next you will be bringing some really obsolete concept into it saying i am saying this and that. Seriously, i said what i said, you don't like it that os fine, i don't remember asking you to. Its a fucking discussion, i have my opinions and just like you and everyone else i am expressing them. You want to nitpick this to death have fun. OTHERS have gotten what i was saying, obviously you want me to say something i won't. So continue on, but i seriously have better things to do than listen to you nip and yap around my ankles.

I stated what i did, you either agree or you don't. Sorry if you want me to CHANGE my mind on it, but i am not going to. Take it for what you will. Move on damn. My statement stands, INACTION LEADS TO INVALIDATION OF OPINIONS. I could honestly care less if someone is in the hospital or what, if they cannot or do not act upon their opinions and no one else does FOR them, their opinions DO IN FACT become invalid as the opposite of what they want happens. I am sorry you don't LIKE it, but ITS THE TRUTH. Damn girl, look at our own fucking government if you want an example.

Yes MOST children regarding POLITICS AND GOVERNMENTAL CONCEPTS opinions ARE invalid. Its why they don't VOTE until they are 18. However, there are some children who have taken ACTION regarding their opinions with regard to tings in politics and laws and charities and government and people have taken NOTICE of their opinions because of same.

YOu wnat me to admit some kumbahya concept that simply ISN'T true in the reality. I am not speaking of politically correctness, i am speaking of things that happen. You may want to keep your head in the sand and say everyone's opinion should be valid, to me, if someone doesn't care enough to act -- then there is a GREAT possibility their opinions will become white noise easily ignored. I am really sorry to burst your fantasy world of how our society really works. I never presumed you were that innocent, maybe you are and i am telling you there is no santa claus.

[deleted]nm you wouldn't get it anyway.

You are making this about crap i never even said - going so far into some specifics you are losing the concept all together. All because you want to take ONE statement and make it about every fucking thing in the world and every possible concept in the world. Again, go back and read my posts and YOU MIGHT if you read them see what i am saying.

i am done with YOU on this thread. You can continue yapping if it makes you feel better but do me a favor at least keep it to what i was saying instead of trying to put words in my mouth.


angel



kittinSol -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 9:54:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19


quote:

ORIGINAL: sirsholly

quote:

I detest the way we are all collectively accepting yet another invasion of privacy for bullshit reasons.
Kittin...i just can't shake the thought that if it were my husband or my kids getting on a plane I would want the airline to do everything possible to ensure their safety. If this means invading the privacy of the other travelers, the airlines have my blessing. The kids privacy and hubby's would of course be invaded too, but there is some other wife/mom who wants my family screened so hers will be safe.





I understand this Holly,but I still cant shake the thought that its not more security thats needed, its enforcing ones that are there. It also seems that its not tighter security on us but making sure agencies are working together that hasnt been corrected. When your right hand doesnt know what the left ones doing, thats a major problem that no amount of scanning will repair. Its the agencies themselves that should be held accountable.


Bingo. Plus, there is not a single iota of evidence that the wannabe Xmas bomber's device would have been detected by these scanners.

The Independent.

"The explosive device smuggled in the clothing of the Detroit bomb suspect would not have been detected by body-scanners set to be introduced in British airports, an expert on the technology warned last night.


The claim severely undermines Gordon Brown's focus on hi-tech scanners for airline passengers as part of his review into airport security after the attempted attack on Flight 253 on Christmas Day.

The Independent on Sunday has also heard authoritative claims that officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Home Office have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively against terrorist threats to aviation. "

We are selling our privacy to the higest bidder. If I'm alone in finding the thought of millions of images of scanned and naked human beings floating around in cyberspace appalling, so be it. I do not find any comfort or heightened sense of security from the thought of airplane passengers being scanned down to their most intimate level.

If it comes to it, I will opt for a security woman patting me down, thank you very much; and I advise everyone who, like me, finds the thought of these things disgusting, to decline the scan.

One sucidal IDIOT and we all fall apart in a fit of collective hysteria, ignoring the fact that full-body scan will prevent little to nothing, and demanding that we and our children be stripped searched as a matter of course?  Has our society gone completely fucking crazy at last?





[image]local://upfiles/100518/95214AC54B0C4A61AC0E5F58B89D5D1F.jpg[/image]



kittinSol -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 9:56:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

i am done with YOU on this thread.



I kind of hope you're done with this thread altogether, because you've added fuck all to the subject, and instead chose to derail it from the very start.



barelynangel -> RE: Airport Security (1/10/2010 10:06:37 AM)

actually not really kittinsol, i think my points are valid. But your friends keep adding to it so it is fair to say ALL of us derailed it not only me. BUt that would mean you would expect them to take responsibility for themselves.

People make choices when they post and if they post towards a post YOU think is meant to derail they are in fact derailing the thread also. Logic does suck sometimes doesn't it.

But i guess it makes you feel better to blame only me. I simply asked you a couple questions kittinsol, you are the one who had a melt down and responded. You could have easily NOT responded if you felt it was derailing the thread. But you did, and then someone else commented, which means you contributed to a concept of what you think is derailing a thread -- but you can't take responsibility for that now can you just like THIS post i am responding to you -- you just couldn't resist commenting and thereby derailing it.

So i guess we are all guilty by your definition kittinsol.
angel



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875