Yeah, Star Trek has totally brainwashed me...
benryves wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
And THAT future is COMPLETELY unacceptable to me; that's exactly the direction in which we're heading. If you don't see the problem with that future, then the media has already brainwashed you to be doubleplusgood obedient.

I may as well say you've been brainwashed into a state of paranoia by the media to think the government are out to get you. Some people genuinely don't have an issue with being checked for illegal items, others do; to call one side or the other brainwashed is a lazy way to avoid a debate.
A fair cop. Allow me to amend my statement: based on the studies and statistics that I've seen referenced on whether recent security measures are actually effective in increasing safety (which I think everyone would agree could be nicely quantified by a reduction or prevention of attacks and such), I believe that the perceived link between these invasive security measures and actual safety is a product of hype rather than reality. I don't think there's any conspiracy behind it; I just think many people are too willing to forego their civil rights and right to personal privacy for the sake of a perceived increase in security that I believe is not real.
benryves wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
More relevant to this topic is the don't touch my junk story that just got posted to Wired (link is to the source, not Wired) [...]

That's surely an example of what not to do? It sounds like he went to the airport to pick a fight. If he has a problem with this (and it sounds like he was perfectly aware of the terms and conditions to flying when he bought the ticket) he should surely be getting in touch with his government representative, not having a go at the people trying to do their jobs.
If you read the full article you'll notice that he checked to see if SAN had those scanners and the website was out of date and he was relieved when he heard that guy in front of him was selected for the scan. I doubt he had no ulterior motive in this situation and I personally am not really comfortable with the amount of detail those scanners have.
I'm definitely with Storm on this; both the scanners and the "patdowns" are equally intrusive suspensions to our rights to bodily privacy, in my opinion.
TheStorm wrote:
benryves wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
More relevant to this topic is the don't touch my junk story that just got posted to Wired (link is to the source, not Wired) [...]

That's surely an example of what not to do? It sounds like he went to the airport to pick a fight. If he has a problem with this (and it sounds like he was perfectly aware of the terms and conditions to flying when he bought the ticket) he should surely be getting in touch with his government representative, not having a go at the people trying to do their jobs.
If you read the full article you'll notice that he checked to see if SAN had those scanners and the website was out of date and he was relieved when he heard that guy in front of him was selected for the scan. I doubt he had no ulterior motive in this situation and I personally am not really comfortable with the amount of detail those scanners have.
Aye; but he was still aware that airports had these machines and that pat-downs do happen. I am not saying whether I think these measures are good or not, but I am saying that his response to the situation is rather immature.

KermMartian wrote:
I'm definitely with Storm on this; both the scanners and the "patdowns" are equally intrusive suspensions to our rights to bodily privacy, in my opinion.
I guess this boils down to whether you think air travel is also a right or is merely a privilege. People certainly aren't scanning you or patting you down in the street; if you want to avoid these, avoid the airports and contact your government representative, don't throw a wobbly at the people at the bottom end of the scale attempting to do their job.
I don't really have a problem with the scanners, as long as people are informed before they buy their ticket that they will have to go through them(though the radiation should definitely be looked into too), and I don't think fining people who were deceived by outdated information is right either. Pat-downs, as I said, are nothing new, but if neither of these measures actually do detect the kinds of things terrorists use to kill thousands of people, then it's a pretty stupid idea to use them in the first place. Sniffer machines can detect bombs just fine, and metal detectors will make quick work of guns anyway. This seems like a stupid move by an overly convoluted and useless network of national security agencies left over from the Bush Administration. Keep in mind though, it is an Obama appointee that's currently watching over this system, so it's not entirely Bush's fault, though it did start with him.

@Benryves
I pretty much agree on both counts.
I'm going to pick on just one little phrase here, due to my limited amount of time online for the moment.
benryves wrote:
avoid the airports
Really, Ben? That's a bit of an unreasonable request, don't you think? When taking a plane is really the only option, how then does that apply?

As Kerm mentioned above, it's not out of paranoia that I am against this. The problem is that there are not only invasive pat-downs and high-detail body scans happening, but that (1) the TSA assured us that these scanners "cannot" store the images scanned (and yet there have been plenty more scanners that have recorded a large number of scanned citizens, not just the low quality that were posted by Gizmodo), (2) the scanners emit a dangerous level of radiation, and (3) these measure seem to really have no affect on the overall security of the airports.

DShiz, it's not a matter of whether or not it's "something new" or not. The fact is that it's invasive and has even escalated to a health risk. The alternative to the scanners is not in the least bit a very comparable alternative.

Metal detectors, scanners for carry ons, guns restricted to cargo only (not carry-on), and sniffers should be plenty. I want to be able to travel without being violated every time before I get on a plane. And avoiding travel by plane is a ridiculously unreasonable request.

It really, honestly, should not matter who's at fault for this (Obama or Bush)... That's not the concern. The concern is the current practices by the TSA in airports and the fact that they should be changed.
I'm with Swivelgames all the way here. Smile If I want to travel to Europe, or travel across the country, then driving or taking a train or walking or swimming are all not very realistic alternatives. Although as Ben says no one is forcing me to fly, no one forces me to go to school either, and I wouldn't expect my Fourth Amendment rights to be suspended because I want to go to class, even if my school is private property and its attendance a privilege rather than a right.
KermMartian wrote:
I'm with Swivelgames all the way here. Smile If I want to travel to Europe, or travel across the country, then driving or taking a train or walking or swimming are all not very realistic alternatives.

Actually, depending on how time sensitive the trip is and how many people are taking it, driving is very much an option. The more people driving the more quickly it approaches (and beats) cost comparability with flying. Business trips? Maybe not. Family vacations gogogo.
elfprince13 wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
I'm with Swivelgames all the way here. Smile If I want to travel to Europe, or travel across the country, then driving or taking a train or walking or swimming are all not very realistic alternatives.

Actually, depending on how time sensitive the trip is and how many people are taking it, driving is very much an option. The more people driving the more quickly it approaches (and beats) cost comparability with flying. Business trips? Maybe not. Family vacations gogogo.


Have fun driving across the Atlantic.
Ultimate Dev'r wrote:
Have fun driving across the Atlantic.

I've never looked into trans-Atlantic passenger shipping lines, but there must be some.
So should all clubs and private parties be denied the right to do pat-downs because all of a sudden the media has made them a big deal? I get that it isn't right to have to submit to one to fly, and I agree with you there, my point is just that they aren't some freaky new perverted security measure people are all of a sudden being subjected to; all that's changed is where they're being done. It isn't that the practice is wrong, it's that it's wrong to make it a condition of what has become an essential part of many people's lives.

As for the scanners, while I understand people don't like being subjected to them in order to fly, I wonder if private businesses like stores and clubs should be allowed to use them? I think I'll start a fork topic for this so I don't hijack this one.
DShiznit wrote:
So should all clubs and private parties be denied the right to do pat-downs because all of a sudden the media has made them a big deal? I get that it isn't right to have to submit to one to fly, and I agree with you there, my point is just that they aren't some freaky new perverted security measure people are all of a sudden being subjected to; all that's changed is where they're being done. It isn't that the practice is wrong, it's that it's wrong to make it a condition of what has become an essential part of many people's lives.

And that the Federal Government is forcing it, rather than private citizens/businesses in private places
elfprince13 wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
So should all clubs and private parties be denied the right to do pat-downs because all of a sudden the media has made them a big deal? I get that it isn't right to have to submit to one to fly, and I agree with you there, my point is just that they aren't some freaky new perverted security measure people are all of a sudden being subjected to; all that's changed is where they're being done. It isn't that the practice is wrong, it's that it's wrong to make it a condition of what has become an essential part of many people's lives.

And that the Federal Government is forcing it, rather than private citizens/businesses in private places

While I usually don't have a problem with the government taking action to protect it's citizens, I agree with you here.

Edit- Keith Olbermann made a great point about this last night. If they've gotten to the packed security line with an explosive, they can set it off there and be just as devastating as if it were on a plane. Really, our intelligence community needs to be able to catch these guys before they get to the crowded airport.
DShiznit wrote:
Edit- Keith Olbermann made a great point about this last night. If they've gotten to the packed security line with an explosive, they can set it off there and be just as devastating as if it were on a plane. Really, our intelligence community needs to be able to catch these guys before they get to the crowded airport.
This. And depending on the airport, it could actually be more devastating. Hell what about stadiums? Or malls? Or businesses? Subway stations? Are we going to dramatically increase security for each and every major place that is subject to an attack? The point, as you said, is to catch them before these places are attacked. The amount of security at airports today is quite useless, IMHO. There's no reason for fliers to be subject to such high radiation, and these types of pat-downs. The TSA really just needs to be thrown out by airports, and new measures need to be taken.

elfprince13 wrote:
Actually, depending on how time sensitive the trip is and how many people are taking it, driving is very much an option. The more people driving the more quickly it approaches (and beats) cost comparability with flying. Business trips? Maybe not. Family vacations gogogo.
Definitely depends on the trip and the budget. I fly to Amarillo about once a month for a total of $120 roundtrip. The gas to drive there and back would easily reach $200 or more. As for family vacations, we never flew. Always drive. It's much more enjoyable Smile

But as for business trips, businessmen like my father are SOL when it comes to this.
swivelgames wrote:
benryves wrote:
avoid the airports
Really, Ben? That's a bit of an unreasonable request, don't you think? When taking a plane is really the only option, how then does that apply?

In what situation is taking an aeroplane the only option? (Maybe I have given the US transport infrastructure too much credit). I must admit that I haven't been near an airport for well over a decade, as trains, cars, coaches, buses and ferries have been more than adequate to get around in Europe.

As an aside, if you're concerned about additional exposure to radiation you probably shouldn't be getting on an aeroplane in the first place - air crew are exposed to higher levels of radiation than nuclear power workers.
benryves wrote:
In what situation is taking an aeroplane the only option? (Maybe I have given the US transport infrastructure too much credit). I must admit that I haven't been near an airport for well over a decade, as trains, cars, coaches, buses and ferries have been more than adequate to get around in Europe.
Indeed you did Razz

Sadly, we're more reliant upon our airlines, and not so much our trains. Buses, cars, and ferrries are indeed usable for most travel, but especially in business and such, a plane is our means of transportation. This is why it is such a concern. Another concern is this: Why should I have to use another form of transportation because the TSA is so paranoid and anal about security? I don't see the point in finding a way around an issue rather then fixing it. Sure in the mean time it would be nice to have another form of transportation to avoid these types of things, but it definitely shouldn't be ignored and simply avoided.

tifreak8x wrote:
The bad thing is, if this isn't stopped right now, the TSA might find a way to get this same equipment set up in train stations, bus stops, and even possibly find a way to scan cars.


benryves wrote:
As an aside, if you're concerned about additional exposure to radiation you probably shouldn't be getting on an aeroplane in the first place - air crew are exposed to higher levels of radiation than nuclear power workers.
Interesting. This I didn't know... source?
swivelgames wrote:
Another concern is this: Why should I have to use another form of transportation because the TSA is so paranoid and anal about security? I don't see the point in finding a way around an issue rather then fixing it. Sure in the mean time it would be nice to have another form of transportation to avoid these types of things, but it definitely shouldn't be ignored and simply avoided.

Oh, I agree with you entirely. A boycott is not going to help on its own (unless very large numbers of people take part); I'm not sure how it works in the USA, but I presume there must be some way to voice your concerns to a representative of the government so these things can be dealt with.

Quote:
benryves wrote:
As an aside, if you're concerned about additional exposure to radiation you probably shouldn't be getting on an aeroplane in the first place - air crew are exposed to higher levels of radiation than nuclear power workers.
Interesting. This I didn't know... source?

Here's a BBC article reporting this - it's fairly ancient, admittedly. The media loves a story about things that might cause health issues (mobile phones, Wi-Fi networks, pylons etc) that I don't tend to pay them much attention.
benryves wrote:

Oh, I agree with you entirely. A boycott is not going to help on its own (unless very large numbers of people take part); I'm not sure how it works in the USA, but I presume there must be some way to voice your concerns to a representative of the government so these things can be dealt with.

That depends where you live (rural New England, vs, say, L.A.), and at what level (local, country, state, federal) of government you want to be heard.
We could just do what tea-partiers do and stomp on people's heads until they minds change...
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
» Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 2 of 10
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement