US. Security or paranoia?

US. Security or paranoia? (Full Version)

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

Message

meatcleaver -> US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 2:40:42 AM)
Go on holiday to the US have have you rights infringed. Go to Canada and Mexico and don't. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1984496,00.html Seriously, is this paranoia or not? Will it help or not? Will it just produce more information overload and drown security in too much irrelevent information while any mischief makers go happily about their work? This to me just seems an over reliance on technology while terrorists will walk under the radar. If one believes the documentry shown on BBC around November, US security failures over the years mostly occured because of over reliance on technology and not having enough people on the ground having converstations. According to the report, a Japanese study found most bio.metric tests don't work anyway. (can't find it on the internet though)

NorthernGent -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 3:19:17 AM)
1) Information overload - quite probably. It sounds like a tall order to deal with so many fingerprints in a short space of time. Maybe they have the technology over there. 2) The real problem is the potential for a false match. It is a fact that the US Government believe they can imprison people without a trial. The democratic principle of innocent until proven guilty was shelved some time ago in the US. You get a false match and you're fucked. Before you know it you'll be in a camp somewhere with your eyeballs being electrocuted (don't worry though, the Brits are banning the advertisement of fatty food to kids - talk about priorities the wrong way round!). 3) Not sure about your conversations idea to crack the nut........ "excuse me Sir, are you a member of Al-Quaeda?"............."errrm yes, but in a non-violent capacity, I work in the laundry department"........It's not going to work is it.........."I'm just the receptionist". No one is going to own up to association with a terrorist organisation. 4) It comes back to one key point: a change to foreign policy is required to solve the problem. 5) From the US Government's and security services' point of view, does it really matter if this proposal works? Isn't this really all part of the climate of fear tactic i.e. "there's loads of them, they're all coming for us.........we need to check all their finger prints........and we also need to blow up every country that hasn't sent us a christmas card in the last twenty years".

NorthernGent -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 3:22:08 AM)
What d'ya reckon Merc? Struggling to control your servants or what? They own you and now they're having a crack at owning us. The tossers.

meatcleaver -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 3:31:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 3) Not sure about your conversations idea to crack the nut........ "excuse me Sir, are you a member of Al-Quaeda?"............."errrm yes, but in a non-violent capacity, I work in the laundry department"........It's not going to work is it.........."I'm just the receptionist". No one is going to own up to association with a terrorist organisation. In the documentry I saw on the BBC, an ex US government official said about the events leading up to the Iranian revolution, if the US agents only stopped to listen to their Iranian contacts instead of monitoring electronic surveilance, the US would have been forewarned about later events.

NorthernGent -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 3:41:13 AM)
Ahh I see. The "Iranian contacts" comment sheds more light on the intention of your post. It sounded to me like you meant questioning would-be terrorists. I take your point about information overload. There is only so much of the stuff people can deal with before some of it gets lost in the cracks.

LW3 -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 3:59:17 AM)
Paranoia. For sure. If a terrorist want to enter the US they will enter. There's always a way to do it and, of course, they have enought resources to find that way and use it. But... inocent people will sufer from that paranoia trying to find terrorists (and failing miserably) longer queues, false matches, ... On my last plane trip they almost have a girl naked at the metal detector. only to find it was the metal at the bra. poor girl. lucky me. [:D] PD: sure thing. a bra is a lethal weapon. don't let women wear one at the plane. [:D]

NorthernGent -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 4:04:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LW3 only to find it was the metal at the bra. poor girl. Did she have a metal pair of knickers on too......with a lock and key so no one could get in?

Real0ne -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 4:10:53 AM)
what good would that do? next false flag operation will be like all the previous ones. Visa's wil be mistakenly issued The biometrics units just so happened to fail the cameras were all malfunctioning the respose units were to far away to respond on time the gullible people of this country will eat it all up no it wont do a damn bit of good except to track citizens etc etc etc as discussed in the national id thread

meatcleaver -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 4:19:28 AM)
I think a lot of people and some politicians for that matter believe those cop and spy films where super-dooper technology gets a blurred photo that looks like an ink stain and turns it into a high definition photo of a real person. Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

Real0ne -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 4:27:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I think a lot of people and some politicians for that matter believe those cop and spy films where super-dooper technology gets a blurred photo that looks like an ink stain and turns it into a high definition photo of a real person. Hollywood has a lot to answer for. There is no amount of technology that can make up for a dishonest government

NorthernGent -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 6:26:21 AM)
The US Government and assorted allies could have wrapped all of this up a long time ago with a sustained police investigation (when Al-Quaeda were no more than a loose association of religious zealots). But, no, they prefered to try and convince people that Al-Quaeda are all 8 feet tall, with one eye, and a big laser coming out of their foreheads and the only way to kill em is to nuke the world.

hisannabelle -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 6:37:16 AM)
pros: - the main reason, it seems, for implementing this, is to make it compatible with the fbi database. i don't see any problem with that; in fact, if this enhances compatibility with our current databases, i'm surprised this hasn't happened before. - they already take 2 fingerprints. it's not like all of a sudden they just decided to start fingerprinting. - it's not a long, drawn-out process to have your fingerprints taken. - it will not affect the majority of travelers all that much, other than perhaps extending their airport time by several minutes. (and believe me, i'm sympathetic. i'm a u.s. citizen and on my first trip to britain, i got through the airport in about 20 minutes going in...coming home, it took me 2-3 hours just to get through all the security checks - as a citizen.) cons: - the very real and important possibility of a fake match. however, this is something that has been dealt with before in law enforcement...it's not like security officers will be seeing a fake match for the first time in their lives, and i am sure there are some safeguards in place for this. - as northerngent mentioned, the penchant to throw people in prison without a trial, and the possibility that this will cause that to happen more often. to be honest, like i said before, it seems the main reason for doing this is compatibility with certain databases, with which i don't have any problems. having your fingerprints taken is not a huge invasion of privacy; there's a whole lot worse the civil liberties unions could harp on. i think it at least deserves a chance - if the issue of false matches ends up being a huge problem, then they'll have to come up with something more efficient. however, governments in general aren't efficient, and the us is the least efficient, so.... for the record, i am a die-hard liberal, but my views on us security have softened a bit as my dominant works in that field (and is conservative). so i'm not exactly approaching this from a let's nuke everybody sort of standpoint ;)

Mercnbeth -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 7:15:46 AM)
quote: What d'ya reckon Merc? Struggling to control your servants or what? NG, Hypocrisy is a word that sparks animosity without intent. I'll use inconsistent to define any person who believes that some government intrusion to freedoms and liberties is okay, but some others are not. I believe that this is an intrusion but it doesn't take away access and it doesn't take away choice. You or anyone can still come into the US. The rule is posted if you want to come you follow it, if you don't want to follow it you don't come. They aren't making anyone have their 'holiday' here. They aren't denying any person or any corporation the liberty to make that choice. Comparing it to the other debate I would think you would be for this regulation. Your cheese law has the intent to protect children's access to information. This law has the intent of protecting the country by identifying people who are considered a threat. Cheese is also 'considered' its not the only food that has the potential to make children obese, however it's the one the government had the ability to regulate and did so. To be consistent, I would expect you to not only be just as supportive but to point out that since it is well intended should not be subject to challenge. Should I just cut and paste your arguments and this time you can take the other side?

NorthernGent -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 8:04:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I believe that this is an intrusion but it doesn't take away access and it doesn't take away choice. Tell you what, you get a false match and the only choice you'll have is which of the four walls of your cell you want to look at for the next couple of days and how you'd like your torture i.e. electrocution or humiliation with a religious flavour. Now that is what I call a government out of control. The lunatics are running the asylum. Time for the asylum owners to get their lunatics under control.

NorthernGent -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 8:07:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle as northerngent mentioned, the penchant to throw people in prison without a trial, and the possibility that this will cause that to happen more often. Put far more diplomatically than I'm capable of. Where would we be without the female touch eh :-)

Mercnbeth -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 8:11:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I believe that this is an intrusion but it doesn't take away access and it doesn't take away choice. Tell you what, you get a false match and the only choice you'll have is which of the four walls of your cell you want to look at for the next couple of days and how you'd like your torture i.e. electrocution or humiliation with a religious flavour. Now that is what I call a government out of control. The lunatics are running the asylum. Time for the asylum owners to get their lunatics under control. Perspective from a prism is true for the observer seeing through it. "False match" is amusing, isn't it just like deciding on one aspect of obesity being "arrested" and isolated from advertisement? However, you are correct in one regard. Like the advertisement, false accusation is difficult to overcome. I would point to this as a good reason not to support any.

NorthernGent -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 8:16:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth "False match" is amusing, isn't it just like deciding on one aspect of obesity being "arrested" and isolated from advertisement? I'm not getting you here. You will need to put some meat on the bones for this comment to be taken seriously.

juliaoceania -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 8:17:01 AM)
My Daddy works at one of the largest container ports in the world, and we are so insecure based upon what he tells me I have no faith that the government really wants to protect us from anything, we are expendable

Mercnbeth -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 8:25:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth "False match" is amusing, isn't it just like deciding on one aspect of obesity being "arrested" and isolated from advertisement? I'm not getting you here. You will need to put some meat on the bones for this comment to be taken seriously. I give you more credit than that. How many aspects of childhood obesity aren't regulated? How many possible tighter security rules have not been implemented? The consequence of a false match falls into the same category of picking on one aspect of the obesity battle. There should be equal assumption regarding the best intent of government in both cases. Ge the connection now?

NorthernGent -> RE: US. Security or paranoia? (1/7/2007 8:53:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth How many aspects of childhood obesity aren't regulated? It is impossible to regulate every aspect of child obesity. The cost would be astronomical. You would need to monitor kids every moment they're awake. You would need to monitor all the food stuffs and snacks they eat with associated fat contents. Times this by millions of kids and some monitoring agency would be biting off more than it could chew. On the otherhand, the banning of business ideas (such as McDonalds) that kids need fatty food is a great way to prevent profiteering at the expense of health and the key point is this: this banning of advertisement allows kids to make an informed choice without business propaganda clouding their judgement. How many possible tighter security rules have not been implemented? Why is this relevant? The consequence of a false match falls into the same category of picking on one aspect of the obesity battle. I still have no idea how you can make an assertion that a false match and the resulting spell in a detention camp without trial is the same as a kid being steered away from fatty foods. Your first two sentences preceeding the third one does not adequately explain the context in which you're making your assertion in sentence 3. There should be equal assumption regarding the best intent of government in both cases. Ge the connection now? No connection whatsoever. Put this in its context. The US government has been imprisoning people without a trial. This is a fact. We also know for a fact that they have embarked on a climate of fear campaign. For example, within an hour of the recent attempted terrorist attack in England a US spokesman was claiming it was the work of "the Islamo-fascists" which they couldn't possibly be able to state with much certainty (unless of course the US government are the jury in such matters and they sit before a crime has actually taken place). The US government is also in Iraq under false allegations of WMD and they're rapidly losing support for their actions in the US. In conclusion, there are good reasons to think the US government is not exactly operating with good intentions here. On the otherhand, banning businesses from filling kids full of propaganda on food choice? I'm not seeing the correlation between the two issues. Something has just occurred to me. Are you saying you think goverment action should be lumped into one regardless of the action and its context? If so, and it appears so, this is a very one dimensional way of looking at this issue. Governments have done good and bad throughout history, it is up to us to filter the bad. Assuming they're all bad, or all good, seems extremely polemic (in the way some people live their lives based on good/evil, god/devil, right/wrong etc). P.S. keep it civil as each post is now coming with an associated snide remark such as "I give you more credit". Discussing the point always works better with me.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02