The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not sure I understand how these are the same at all? The government should most certainly be involved when pilots decide to drink and fly that is very dangerous. I just don't think it has an effect and is cost effective at all to do it to every pontential driver or flyer. Explain how I am misunderstanding your analogy. I really don't think I get what you are saying.

You have been talking about innocent until proven guilty. How people shouldn't be subjected to searches. How United Airlines should be responsible for who gets on their airplanes.

Then you say it's the governments job to make sure the pilot is sober. I'm just confused how one end you are saying that security is completely on the company. That if their plane blows up it's on them. But that doesn't reach to the sobriety of a pilot. In that case it's all on the government to intervene and be the watchdog. Basically your argument on not being security for passengers contradicts your argument on pilots.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You have been talking about innocent until proven guilty. How people shouldn't be subjected to searches. How United Airlines should be responsible for who gets on their airplanes.

Then you say it's the governments job to make sure the pilot is sober. I'm just confused how one end you are saying that security is completely on the company. That if their plane blows up it's on them. But that doesn't reach to the sobriety of a pilot. In that case it's all on the government to intervene and be the watchdog. Basically your argument on not being security for passengers contradicts your argument on pilots.

Nah. Go back to my original post. You are trying to pull the same bullshit people always pull on me when I argue religion (and I think I remember you being an athiest as well) They claim if you don't believe in their religion that you are either right and you die or you are wrong and spend eternity in hell. So make a choice. They leave out that there are all kinds of choices in between (god that doesn't send people that don't go to chruch to hell, heaven that has nothing to do with biblical god, reincarnation, etc) #4 might offend you but that is why companies 1,2,and 3 exist. Don't fly #4. Or would you hate it but still fly #4?

You are saying that I said either no searches or what we have now. My exact example was company #1 use body scans, #2 uses pat downs, and #3 does what we did up until about last year. I never said it was all or nothing. False dichotomy?

The terror attacks on 9-11 were with box cutters which I have read were legal and with passengers who had always thought that hijackers will land the plane somewhere, not crash it into a building. I think system #3 is perfectly fine with the new reality and would fly their airline even if it costs more money than #1 and #2. (Of course if airline #4 searched only Middle Eastern people I would definitely fly there. Even though Showtime and NBC and other shows have cases of white people attempting suicide bombing I can't remember that ever happening in reality)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I have also noticed this rather blatant hypocrisy on both sides, to the extent it even caused me to have an extremely rare difference of opinion with Ann Coulter (although she at least redeemed herself by proposing expanded use of profiling, I'd prefer to see the two in combination).

Yeah, this somehow became a partisan issue. I have no problem with you feeling that airline security is really important to you and you are willing to sacrifice some liberties. But at least have the balls to do it even when "your guy" is in office.

You (JiMga) have always believed this. I have always had the opposite view. But at least we are both consistant no matter if Obama or Bush Clinton or Ron Paul are in charge of the country. "My guy" doesn't change my mind on issues like this. I try to choose "a guy" that matches as many of the issues that I believe as I can. But if my guy gets elected I won't all of a sudden go with him on any measure just because I like him. Sadly it seems like most of the country doesn't think independently like that. Maybe I am wrong? Maybe the mass media just sells it that way?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

You are saying that I said either no searches or what we have now. My exact example was company #1 use body scans, #2 uses pat downs, and #3 does what we did up until about last year. I never said it was all or nothing. False dichotomy?

I'm not talking about the procedures for security. I'm talking about how in that statement you say that security falls on the airlines. That they can do whatever they want and the people can decide who they feel safest with. Then a dozen posts later you say the opposite when it comes to pilot security.

So I'm asking you what the difference is. Why the change of stance when it comes to pilots as opposed to passengers? Why do you want the government to spend money on pilot security but leave it on the company for passenger security? I understand your statement on leaving it up to companies and letting customers decide who they feel safest with. But don't understand why that doesn't extend to pilots. They would have every right to give their pilots sobriety tests before entering the plane, right? So why waste government resources?

And I'm not pushing an all or nothing, that would be you. You are the one classifying anyone who is fine with this in with supporting the Patriot Act and other laws/regulations implemented by Bush and Obama.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yeah, this somehow became a partisan issue. I have no problem with you feeling that airline security is really important to you and you are willing to sacrifice some liberties. But at least have the balls to do it even when "your guy" is in office.

What liberties are being sacrificed? No one is coming into your home and forcing you to do this. These are just procedures in place to fly on someone else's airline in public airspace.

Question for you. If you were visiting the White House, do you feel that your liberties have been sacrificed if they make you pass through a metal detector?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What liberties are being sacrificed? No one is coming into your home and forcing you to do this. These are just procedures in place to fly on someone else's airline in public airspace.

Question for you. If you were visiting the White House, do you feel that your liberties have been sacrificed if they make you pass through a metal detector?

You are choosing the #1 place in the world that would need strong security and putting all airplanes up with that? I will go the other route. How about full body scanners and patdowns in all subways, buses, and taxi services?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It is certainly a dilemma. I'm not sure where I stand on it.

Reason says that vehicles pose a more clear and present danger to all of us, but there is nobody regulating who gets into them before they are allowed onto the road. While they can regulate who can LEGALLY drive them, that says nothing about what they are carrying (nor do you have to be a legal driver, you simply need to be able to start the vehicle and you can drive it anywhere).

That's where I am on it. It's all about accessibility to me. There is much greater accessibility to do damage by using an automobile than there is risk of commandeering an airplane and having that used as a real weapon. Not to diminish the 9/11 effect (which I'll explain below)...but it just has proven to be a one-trick pony. I realize everything can happen twice...but it just isn't practical to go broke trying to defend against yesterday's attack when tomorrow's will certainly be different. By contrast...a car could be driving with a backseat passenger carrying a bazooka...and nobody would know any different.

While those of us on the ground could be hurt/killed due to debris from a plane that exploded at a high altitude, I wonder what the risk is to the average person from that? We are always at more risk driving to work than we are from terrorism. Just how far are we willing to go for this safety we all seem to want?

This is what it comes down to. I think the government did the right thing (generally) in regard to air travel after 9/11 and for a couple of years afterward. We truly did not know what hit us & so we had to be vigilant and screen travelers and luggage/cargo more closely.

Should we have employed some level of profiling? I think so. It isn't racist, elitist, or any other name...it's called risk analysis. It's done (with regard to people) to differing degrees in insurance (life, car, health), marketing (of every product/service), video games, and sports among many others.

But as we are now some 9 years beyond 9/11...we do have to re-evaluate the amount of credibility we give to box-cutter armed middle-eastern crazies and the risk they really pose to our safety. We didn't allow guns, knives ("real" knives), swords, or bombs on airplanes before 9/11. Can't we simply accept that part of 9/11 was that we all learned to be more vigilant and not believe hijackers who claim to have bombs that we'll be ok if we sit down and don't cause problems? Is there anybody who wouldn't jump up and help take down a hijacker? Can we assume some level of communal security with the rest of the passengers on a plane?

[panerd]

Congressman Paul (paraphrased): "Why can't we trust airlines to do this (security) with private companies? Which airline would you fly the one with government security or the one run by Brinks? Who has more incentive not to mess up?"

[JediKooter]

Not arguing, just adding...I think it would be in the airlines best interests to find what makes their customers the happiest (i.e., continue paying for their services) while trying to take care of the legitimate security risks.

I would just think that the airlines would be against most things that have the chance to drive its customer base away.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

You are choosing the #1 place in the world that would need strong security and putting all airplanes up with that? I will go the other route. How about full body scanners and patdowns in all subways, buses, and taxi services?

Subways, buses, and taxi services do not have the potential to kill anywhere close to what an airplane can. They can't do the same amount of damage to our infrastructure as an airplane can.

What you're saying is akin to demanding the same background checks on those buying assault rifles to those buying BB guns.

And that still doesn't answer my question about why you don't feel it should be up to the airlines to monitor the sobriety of their pilots.

[panerd]

TSA: Some government officials to skip airport security | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO

Seriously? Please explain. The pilots (who fly the plane and can crash it at a whim) need to be screened, innocent people need to be screened, however a list will be made up of government officials (soon it will be big business people) who don't need to be screened. I am sure most of you guys still have no problem with this? Fuck why screen Bill Gates he won't blow up a plane, but athiest panerd who sees no objective accomplished in dying... pat him down. He's not famous or rich enough... we get to grab his crotch!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

(soon it will be big business people)

These are my favorite parts of your posts and most extreme political partisians. How you can jump from something to a totally different extreme. The whole "they won't let me buy armor piercing bullets so next thing you know we will all be rounded up and thrown into death camps".

How you were able to get from them allowing members of Congress to avoid the screening when they are accompanied by TSA approved security to letting CEOs of companies walk though is beyond me.

And that's not a comment on the article at all. Just the ridiculousness of jumping to that extreme when the article says nothing of the sort.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by panerd

TSA: Some government officials to skip airport security | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO

Seriously? Please explain. The pilots (who fly the plane and can crash it at a whim) need to be screened, innocent people need to be screened, however a list will be made up of government officials (soon it will be big business people) who don't need to be screened. I am sure most of you guys still have no problem with this? Fuck why screen Bill Gates he won't blow up a plane, but athiest panerd who sees no objective accomplished in dying... pat him down. He's not famous or rich enough... we get to grab his crotch!

Originally Posted by RainMaker

These are my favorite parts of your posts and most extreme political partisians. How you can jump from something to a totally different extreme. The whole "they won't let me buy armor piercing bullets so next thing you know we will all be rounded up and thrown into death camps".

How you were able to get from them allowing members of Congress to avoid the screening when they are accompanied by TSA approved security to letting CEOs of companies walk though is beyond me.

And that's not a comment on the article at all. Just the ridiculousness of jumping to that extreme when the article says nothing of the sort.

I can see where panerd is coming from. This falls into the classic example of those who make the rules don't seem to have to follow them.

I see both sides of the argument that has taken place the past several pages. I also recognize the need for tighter security measures, but don't want to lose more freedoms either.

We have a fucked up selfish government.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am sure most of you guys still have no problem with this?

I won't even try to speak for "most" but it doesn't bother me a whit.

If you're willing to go through the same vetting process they've been through and are subsequently ever consequential enough to warrant government security guards then I promise I won't say a word when you skip the line either.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I won't even try to speak for "most" but it doesn't bother me a whit.

If you're willing to go through the same vetting process they've been through and are subsequently ever consequential enough to warrant government security guards then I promise I won't say a word when you skip the line either.

Will you still feel this way if one of these "government officials" turns out to be a terrorist or working with them? Just curious....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Will you still feel this way if one of these "government officials" turns out to be a terrorist or working with them? Just curious....

If the vetting process is that fucked up, then was anything going to work anyway?

I mean, maybe our universe exists on the head of a pin in the sewing room of a giant space octopus, but at some point you kind of have to accept that something is real/sufficient or else you tend to end up in a rubber room

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If the vetting process is that fucked up, then was anything going to work anyway?

I mean, maybe our universe exists on the head of a pin in the sewing room of a giant space octopus, but at some point you kind of have to accept that something is real/sufficient or else you tend to end up in a rubber room

Maybe the reality is that we are all in a rubber room right now.

Seriously though, I see no reason why anyone should be exempt from security precautions in this country. Whatever happened to staying ahead of the game? Why the fuck do we have to be such a reactionary nation? Hey, let's put our citizens through immense scrutiny with wire-tapping, picture-taking, groping pat-downs at the airport; but let terrorists off the hook by not closing our borders (or at least making it much more difficult to get in), not to mention that getting on a plane to the United States is probably much easier than flying out of it. I just don't get why anyone should be given special security clearance at this point. Good for them if they went through hoops to get their position. They should have done that anyway, I don't understand how that makes them any less of a risk than joe blow from the Sudan who wants to blow us the fuck up.

[bhlloy]

Hate to say it but I absolutely agree with Jon here. I mean FFS, if a member of congress wants to they can probably carry a dirty bomb into a room with most of the important politicians in the country. I'm pretty comfortable with the notion that no member of congress is going to blow up a plane in a billion years. Interesting to see that a couple of pages ago we were advocating the Israeli method of increased screening and profiling, now we want to pat down US congressmen?

The difference between member of congress panerd and athiest panerd is that the security services know every intimate detail of the congressman's life whereas they probably have no clue who panerd is other than his passport and his all knowing smile. And yeah, if an everyday citizen wants to submit to the vetting, intrusion and keeps the level of security clearance up to date that it takes to get this kind of treatment, cool. But the notion that a random person walking up to the counter should expect the same level of security as a high level member of the government is absolutely insane.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here's where I take bhlloy off the hook so he doesn't take heat for agreeing with me when I'm right

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I'm pretty comfortable with the notion that no member of congress is going to blow up a plane in a billion years.

Why would they? The current administration has already found plenty of ways to damage or even destroy America without blowing themselves up in the bargain.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

The difference between member of congress panerd and athiest panerd is that the security services know every intimate detail of the congressman's life whereas they probably have no clue who panerd is other than his passport and his all knowing smile. And yeah, if an everyday citizen wants to submit to the vetting, intrusion and keeps the level of security clearance up to date that it takes to get this kind of treatment, cool. But the notion that a random person walking up to the counter should expect the same level of security as a high level member of the government is absolutely insane.

Maybe I'm just wired for devious thoughts....but the first thought that comes to mind is Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent who spied for the Russians. He didn't want to die for the Russians. He wasn't going to walk into any secure facility and detonate a bomb for them. He was just f'n greedy.

Anyway...to counter this line of thought (and I think to the point JiMGA was making)...a (potentially corrupt) congressman doesn't want to die either. He/she isn't going to walk into the House and detonate a bomb. He isn't going to pull out a bazooka at the State of the Union. But he might smuggle in some components for a nice hefty fee which he can conveniently leave at a pre-determined time/place for the "real" bomber to pickup & use (i.e. is the security agent really going to watch him take a shit?). This isn't Tom Clancy BS...this is a real possibility. Hell, if his political platform is that the other candidate/party is "soft" on terrorism, this even helps him/her get re-elected. It's a dangerous path to go down imo.

So no...I fail to see the logic that we have to do full body scans on the general public but we need to let certain people thru completely unchecked for basic security screening (which, the level of screening is a separate issue to me). This is why we have Airforce 1...those are the important people who should not fly commercial nor be subject to screening. FTM...fly private charter if you can't be bothered to be screened just like everybody else. If you aren't willing to submit to the same (government-enforced) scanning that everybody else must go through, then I don't think "government" should be the security agency. That is what bouncers do for private establishments.

[molson]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Interesting to see that a couple of pages ago we were advocating the Israeli method of increased screening and profiling, now we want to pat down US congressmen?

Good point. A growing list of people who are excluded from the most invasive screens is actually a common-sense approach that sounds a lot like what Israel does. It's a step in the right direction. But in America, there's going to be a ton of resistance to either positive or negative profiling because that's just our culture. The only thing that might make us madder than body scans is if we see that someone else doesn't have to do them. We demand everyone be looked at equally, and as long as that's the case, everybody needs to be treated as a terrorist.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

We demand everyone be looked at equally, and as long as that's the case, everybody needs to be treated as a terrorist.

But I don't agree everybody is looked at equally right now. This is why we have our most important political leader(s) traveling on Air Force 1. Or when Senators need to travel to see the troops in Iraq/Afghanistan...they travel via military planes.

It is when they enter the commercial sector that we (previously) treat them equally. I don't think the argument is that body scans & pat downs are completely off the table. I think most (or at least myself) would argue that there are 2 separate issues. And one can be for/against one & hold a different opinion for the other.

(1) What should be the base level of security screening for ALL passengers?

(2) Should profiling be used to determine those that go to more scrutinized screenings?

In the case of (1)...I think most who argue against body scans are simply against the myriads of potential (and realized) negative consequences that this can add for an undetermined level of increased security. But some disagree and believe it is perfectly fine to do these scans on everybody. I tend to dislike the slippery slope there & think it wasteful to add more costs to traveling by air as it simply makes the cost of entry even higher...thus excluding more people from traveling (mostly for personal travel). An alternative is to allow airlines to do this individually so that they can serve the customers who are willing to pay/not willing to pay for such increased security. Whether congressmen should be exempt from this is more a question of point (2) below...not (1) imo.

In the case of (2)...I think profiling makes sense for members of congress & more likely terrorist suspects alike. But let the CIA determine they are cleared from increased security checks (subject to onsite security concerns)...not base level security checks.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Maybe I'm just wired for devious thoughts....but the first thought that comes to mind is Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent who spied for the Russians. He didn't want to die for the Russians. He wasn't going to walk into any secure facility and detonate a bomb for them. He was just f'n greedy.

Anyway...to counter this line of thought (and I think to the point JiMGA was making)...a (potentially corrupt) congressman doesn't want to die either. He/she isn't going to walk into the House and detonate a bomb. He isn't going to pull out a bazooka at the State of the Union. But he might smuggle in some components for a nice hefty fee which he can conveniently leave at a pre-determined time/place for the "real" bomber to pickup & use (i.e. is the security agent really going to watch him take a shit?). This isn't Tom Clancy BS...this is a real possibility. Hell, if his political platform is that the other candidate/party is "soft" on terrorism, this even helps him/her get re-elected. It's a dangerous path to go down imo.

So no...I fail to see the logic that we have to do full body scans on the general public but we need to let certain people thru completely unchecked for basic security screening (which, the level of screening is a separate issue to me). This is why we have Airforce 1...those are the important people who should not fly commercial nor be subject to screening. FTM...fly private charter if you can't be bothered to be screened just like everybody else. If you aren't willing to submit to the same (government-enforced) scanning that everybody else must go through, then I don't think "government" should be the security agency. That is what bouncers do for private establishments.

This. It isn't about everyone being treated equally, as Molson states. It is more about security applying to everyone, regardless of who you are and where you stand socially and politically. If these guys don't want to participate, or feel they are above security screening every time they fly, then use private jets and charters.

I don't feel slighted that I have to go through screening while a senator does not. What bothers me is that we have already seen how people can get into our country and in important positions with devious intentions. Since we don't know who these people are, and there is no real way to ever know for sure, everyone should be subject to the same security precautions when flying on public airways.

[Tekneek]

This blog posting, by Bruce Schneier, shows the way TSA (and aviation security in general) has NOT been "one step ahead of the terrorists" :

Schneier on Security: Me on Airport Security

A short history of airport security: We screen for guns and bombs, so the terrorists use box cutters. We confiscate box cutters and corkscrews, so they put explosives in their sneakers. We screen footwear, so they try to use liquids. We confiscate liquids, so they put PETN bombs in their underwear. We roll out full-body scanners, even though they wouldn’t have caught the Underwear Bomber, so they put a bomb in a printer cartridge. We ban printer cartridges over 16 ounces — the level of magical thinking here is amazing — and they’re going to do something else.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Bruce Schneier

This is a stupid game, and we should stop playing it.

This is a pretty good summary of my opinion on TSA security measures & body scans. Seriously...at what point do we just say that we can't keep increasing the cost of everything we do just to hopefully make it slightly more secure?

What do we do when body scans don't catch men trained to break necks with their hands? Insist everybody must accept being restrained during the flight? At some point, there is calculated risk analysis. There are myriads of other ways to cause mass carnage in democracies & we cannot thwart them all.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

This is a pretty good summary of my opinion on TSA security measures & body scans. Seriously...at what point do we just say that we can't keep increasing the cost of everything we do just to hopefully make it slightly more secure?

Aside from the expense, when do we decide that our "solution" conflicts too strongly with our ideals?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Aside from the expense, when do we decide that our "solution" conflicts too strongly with our ideals?

I'm going to say when the security line takes 8 minutes instead of the current 5 minutes.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm going to say when the security line takes 8 minutes instead of the current 5 minutes.

Why not install body scanners at department stores as well? It would only take an additional 3-5 minutes to get into the store. How about a grocery store?

Because one can use a bomb to kill roughly the same number of people at either of these as an average flight.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Why not install body scanners at department stores as well? It would only take an additional 3-5 minutes to get into the store. How about a grocery store?

Because one can use a bomb to kill roughly the same number of people at either of these as an average flight.

Let me know when that happens.

If it did, it'd obviously be an abrupt and unprecedented intrusion on daily life. We've had 5 minute security lines at airports for decades. And most people don't even fly, let alone regularly.

And last I checked, there are more stores in the U.S. than there are flights. So obviously there is some kind of "calculated risk analysis". If there wasn't, we would have actual, time-consuming, seriously intrusive airline screening.

TSA sucks, but they're hindered since they politically can't utilize more effective profiling techniques. What was your solution again - go back to pre-9/11 metal detection only? Would that even save any time? People were idiots back then and could never get through the machine on the first try. At least now the people in front of me line largely know what they're doing and are prepared. Is this really a crisis?

Edit: We're obviously reacting, and one step behind the terrorists, no doubt. But the same people complaining about taking off their shoes would lose their shit in rage if, after a thwarted shoe-bombing attack, we didn't change anything and there was then a successful shoe-bomb attack. Reacting isn't ideal, but some people talk about it like it's actually a bad thing.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Aside from the expense, when do we decide that our "solution" conflicts too strongly with our ideals?

Who's ideals are we talking about, though? Travelers...or those who cannot tell the American people what they need to hear?

Right now, the TSA is deciding that for us. Then when a few "crazies" dare to protest their nuts on camera (albeit with an esteemed TSA "professional" viewing )...we can now have the option to have them touched. Not because we have set off a background check trigger or acted suspiciously at the airport...but because less than 50 people over the course of nearly 10 years have attempted to do terrible acts; therefore the billions (yes, B) of air travelers must not only adhere to such invasive (or thorough, depending on your view) security checkpoints as a base level.

So...I don't like the invasive measures, personally. I'm also not against some level of security. I'm just of the opinion that even if you have no issues with the invasive nature...you have to see that the entire cost structure is a slippery slope which the terrorists WILL eventually adapt to and other forms of transportation & public gatherings WILL be next. And we have to stop thinking that "security" has no cost cap to it.

In short...we already stop guns, substantial bombs, & substantial blades. I think that is enough to ask the TSA to reasonably do; and the rest is truly up to chance that we cannot ever prevent 100%. Part of living in an open society...people are free to (try to) do bad things as well.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

Let me know when that happens.

Serious question...if somebody (let's say an Al Qaeda operative) detonated a conventional bomb in a busy shopping mall in middle America...what "should" the government do? What if another did the same thing at a grocery store out west? Next a high school football game in the south?

Would this now make it justifiable (in your opinion) to where nobody, could go anywhere, without being screened, scanned, whatever?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: We're obviously reacting, and one step behind the terrorists, no doubt. But the same people complaining about taking off their shoes would lose their shit in rage if, after a thwarted shoe-bombing attack, we didn't change anything and there was then a successful shoe-bomb attack. Reacting isn't ideal, but some people talk about it like it's actually a bad thing.

Earlier in this thread, I stated that the TSA is simply reacting to the terrorists. Why did you insist otherwise then, but admit it now?

Originally Posted by molson

I'm positive you don't have all the info on what TSA procedures are based on, what terrorist plans were thwarted, etc.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Who's ideals are we talking about, though? Travelers...or those who cannot tell the American people what they need to hear?

What do "the American people" need to hear?

So...I don't like the invasive measures, personally. I'm also not against some level of security. I'm just of the opinion that even if you have no issues with the invasive nature...you have to see that the entire cost structure is a slippery slope which the terrorists WILL eventually adapt to and other forms of transportation & public gatherings WILL be next. And we have to stop thinking that "security" has no cost cap to it.

I'm saying that there are financial costs, and there are liberty costs. I don't mind factoring both of them into these decisions.

Outside of this TSA discussion, I can think of other problems. Property forfeiture is supposedly needed to stop criminal activity, primarily of the drug trafficking variety. We need no-knock warrants in order to fight the drug trade. We need limits on the amount of cash you are allowed to carry with you, in order to fight that illegal drug trade. Frankly, I am less worried about the drug trade than I am the tools "we" use to fight it. I'd rather just make drug use legal and sell it in stores, roll back the intrusions, spend half the financial savings on drug treatment programs, and end up safer than we are right now. It isn't hard to find evidence of a pattern of decisions where the "solution" rivals the "problem" in terms of the harm it can cause (and be very expensive at the same time).

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

TSA sucks, but they're hindered since they politically can't utilize more effective profiling techniques. What was your solution again - go back to pre-9/11 metal detection only? Would that even save any time? People were idiots back then and could never get through the machine on the first try. At least now the people in front of me line largely know what they're doing and are prepared. Is this really a crisis?

My stance is that there is a line to draw in EVERY situation in life. I believe invasive body searches & essentially having to pose naked before every flight to be a pretty good line with regards to personal freedoms. The other line is cost-driven and this mentality that we can never spend too much on security. I couldn't give a crap about the time involved any more than the fact that it requires more "agents" and more "products" to fill this time at the ever-increasing cost to travelers.

I'm also not against profiling so long as there is some oversight or check/balance to the determinations made. I'm still not sure it means somebody needs to get a full rubdown without having triggered the initial screening...but that might be a separate argument altogether.

Edit: We're obviously reacting, and one step behind the terrorists, no doubt. But the same people complaining about taking off their shoes would lose their shit in rage if, after a thwarted shoe-bombing attack, we didn't change anything and there was then a successful shoe-bomb attack. Reacting isn't ideal, but some people talk about it like it's actually a bad thing.

Reacting is not a bad thing. I think more invasive security measures are only natural after an event of any size (certainly so after 9/11). I think many of the post-9/11 security measures have been good. I'm just asking...do we keep increasing security forever? Where do you draw the line?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm going to say when the security line takes 8 minutes instead of the current 5 minutes.

So, for you, the only concern is the time involved? So if they could force you to strip down and get dressed again in less than 8 minutes, you'd be ok with that?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So, for you, the only concern is the time involved? So if they could force you to strip down and get dressed again in less than 8 minutes, you'd be ok with that?

I'm 39 - I'm aok with people wanting to see me naked if it means I'm not queuing for airport security for 30 minutes+ .... now they might not be on the other hand

(really don't quite understand why people are so concerned about the idea of being seen naked by another person myself ....)

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'm 39 - I'm aok with people wanting to see me naked if it means I'm not queuing for airport security for 30 minutes+ .... now they might not be on the other hand

(really don't quite understand why people are so concerned about the idea of being seen naked by another person myself ....)

Maybe you never learned that those were your "private parts." Many people did, and they consider them as such. Now people can teach their children that those are "private parts" unless you want to go on a plane, in which case they are public parts that you should actually let strangers see and touch.

I can't say that I am really all that concerned about it, but I don't see what safety it is bringing us either. So, if it isn't making us safer, and is increasing expenses and is invasive, then why are we doing it? Your tolerance of it does not make it a good idea.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Frankly, I am less worried about the drug trade than I am the tools "we" use to fight it.

And that's a big part of the problem, too many people that can't see the forest for the trees. We (as a culture) lack the will or the good sense or both to do what is necessary.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

My stance is that there is a line to draw in EVERY situation in life. I believe invasive body searches & essentially having to pose naked before every flight to be a pretty good line with regards to personal freedoms. The other line is cost-driven and this mentality that we can never spend too much on security. I couldn't give a crap about the time involved any more than the fact that it requires more "agents" and more "products" to fill this time at the ever-increasing cost to travelers.

I'm also not against profiling so long as there is some oversight or check/balance to the determinations made. I'm still not sure it means somebody needs to get a full rubdown without having triggered the initial screening...but that might be a separate argument altogether.




Reacting is not a bad thing. I think more invasive security measures are only natural after an event of any size (certainly so after 9/11). I think many of the post-9/11 security measures have been good. I'm just asking...do we keep increasing security forever? Where do you draw the line?

LMAO

Who's posing naked?? Seriously! These things are not THAT invasive. Jeezus h Christ!

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And that's a big part of the problem, too many people that can't see the forest for the trees. We (as a culture) lack the will or the good sense or both to do what is necessary.

I am not sure which side you're on, Jon, since that argument could be applied either way.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LMAO

Who's posing naked?? Seriously! These things are not THAT invasive. Jeezus h Christ!

I assure you that your thoughtful mockery doesn't make people any less naked on the images.

Do you think it automatically removes private parts so you look like a mannequin?

[SirFozzie]

Interesting bits being released by WikiLeaks.. I'd really like to know how they got their hands on US Diplomatic cables.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I assure you that your thoughtful mockery doesn't make people any less naked on the images.

Do you think it automatically removes private parts so you look like a mannequin?

LOL no. But nor is it photo-realistic including my face or anything.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Interesting bits being released by WikiLeaks.. I'd really like to know how they got their hands on US Diplomatic cables.

This is still part of the data they got from Bradley Manning, I believe. He snuck a lot of stuff out on a CDR, while pretending that he was listening to Lady Gaga songs.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I assure you that your thoughtful mockery doesn't make people any less naked on the images.

Do you think it automatically removes private parts so you look like a mannequin?

For sure, which is why every image you see on TV or mainstream media has certain areas blurred. There is far more detail revealed than the average person probably knows about.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

What do "the American people" need to hear?

That security has a finite budget & that a certain amount of casualties are necessarily acceptable when compared to the potential costs. But too many people confuse "security" with "freedom". Not so much in definition...but in discussing the 2.

I'm saying that there are financial costs, and there are liberty costs. I don't mind factoring both of them into these decisions.

I agree. I'm just seeing this mentality of "security at all costs!!!" taking hold in this country when IMO it should be "freedom at all costs!!!".

Kind of ironic as well if you ask me. Many of the same people who hate the Patriot Act are now perfectly fine with scanning/screening...which is twice as invasive and without any probable cause (other than you dared to fly in this country).

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LOL no. But nor is it photo-realistic including my face or anything.

It isn't airbrushed, ready-for-Maxim material I'm sure but should somebody's 10 yr old daughter be subjected to it? How about an 82 yr old muslim woman? How about anybody that simply is more modest than "ahh f- it"?

I'm just sayin...we should stop & think sometimes before we go down these paths.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I'm just sayin...we should stop & think sometimes before we go down these paths.

LOL. The naive and the gullible have already willingly gone down this path and the rest of us have to put up with it. And just think, it wasn't but a few years ago that there was a great outcry about the government intruding upon personal communications in the name of security.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Interesting bits being released by WikiLeaks.. I'd really like to know how they got their hands on US Diplomatic cables.

From my reading 2,000,000 government employees actually had access to them. They are not "top secret" just "secret" and in the wake of 9/11 a lot of documents that would have been more closely protected were more widely disseminated in order to improve cooperation between government agencies.

In short it looks like the same guy as been responsible for the last few big leaks. Brad Manning just copied it all down from a share somewhere, zipped them up and uploaded. Proceeded to brag to a well known hacker who in turn handed him to the feds. But if what I've read is true this information would have gotten out there sooner or later.

[JPhillips]

I don't see why we can't implement software that makes bodies look like mannequins. That seems to be in place in other countries.