So anyone who wants to protect their privacy, and their rights to it, is automatically trying to hide something in your opinion??? Don't you think that view is a bit on the extreme side?

This is all very scary...very 1984ish to me.

Edited for spelling



[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 11-26-2002).]

Your civil liberties are not being violated because this would be VOLUNTARY.

If you do not want to give up the information, then don't do it. You don't have to, and nobody will be arresting you if you do not disclose that information.

If you want to blow past the lines, you will have to give up some information. If you do not want to give up that information, then don't do it, but be prepared to wait in line.

How anyone can claim that their civil liberties are being violated when the disclosure of information is VOLUNTARY is beyond me.

And spare me the whole slippery slope first they came for the Jews nonsense. It is simply not applicable in this situation. Nobody is coming for ANYONE.

It is an insult to the six million Jews who were slaughtered to compare an inconvenience like airport screening to the concentration camps.

[This message has been edited by mdtony (edited 11-26-2002).]

Actually, if you read the case law, you will find that the Second Amendment has not been applied to individual gun ownership, NRA rhetoric aside. In fact, there was a big stink raised when Ashcroft said that it was now the government's position that it did.

Relax, I don't care if you have a gun or not. I'm just pointing out that it is not as cut and dried as the NRA and others would have you believe. The courts have yet to decide whether or not individual gun ownership is covered by the Second Amendment.

mdtony
"Your civil liberties are not being violated because this would be VOLUNTARY.

If you do not want to give up the information, then don't do it. You don't have to, and nobody will be arresting you if you do not disclose that information*

You hit the nail on the head. I didnt know about the point you raised about gun ownership.


[This message has been edited by drbala (edited 11-26-2002).]

My basic idea in starting this thread is not to set up an exercise or mechanism by which you catch terrorists. It is an absolute opposite: to let proven non terrorists(About 99%) to go thro with no hassle and minimal screening but concentrate on the potential terrorists using a filtering system which may be multilevel.It will be entirely voluntary and those who do not want to divulge the necessary information are welcome to join the longggg que again and again and again and again happy about your liberty and civil rights.

[This message has been edited by drbala (edited 11-26-2002).]

Come on, Bruce. Let's be honest here. The government, in some way shape or form, already has access to those records. Financial records? The IRS knows exactly how much money I made last year, how much interest I pay on my house, and how much money I made or lost selling stocks. The FBI can take a look at their databases to see if I'm a criminal. Customs knows when I have traveled outside the US and where I went and when I came back and what I brought with me.

So what NEW information would I be disclosing to the government? None!

So, let's think this through. Allowing the TSA to look at information that the government already has would allow me to blow past the lines of folks who claim that airport security is a violation of our Constitutional rights -- despite the fact that the courts have said they are not?

Sign me up.

ME too mdtony

Bruce,

There are limits to what can be done. We are limited by techonology and human nature. We are limited to measures that can be applied to close to two million passengers per day without causing untollerable delays. On the other hand, we have to take whatever reasonable precautions we can to prevent additional attacks.

Considering the many contridicting goals they are trying to acheive, and that they are a government agency, I think they're doing a pretty good, though not perfect, job.

Having a random element is completely appropriate in that it adds unpredictability and is a recognized means of backup quality assurance.

That's a foolish and simplistic asumption.

Where do you get this idiotic idea that randomness equates to un-American?

EVERYONE is searched as EVERYONE must pass through the magnometer and have their carry on items Xrayed. The EXTENT of the search varies based on a number of criteria including the results of the magnometer and Xray inspections, profiling, and random selection.

There is an established figure which represents the value of one airline passenger's life which is used in doing the cost/benefit analasys which determines if saftey changes will be mandated. The problem with terrorist attacks is the multiplyer. Will it be one passenger killed on the airplane or 3000 people killed on the ground?

They get killed one or two at a time on the ground not 3000 all at once. People driving cars, using machinery, etc. have significant control over their own safety, people in an airliner or ground target do not.

No, I think he's done a little too much reading of the news. CAPPS II is supposed to take into account a lot more information about you, like your flight history and other records the government gets its hands on.

As mentioned in the following thread, the newest initiative is to track all bank, credit card and phone bills, in addition to your public records and in some cases getting a list of books you've purchased from bookstores (there's also some talk of tracking library borrows too):

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/007781.html

They're working on it. It's only a matter of time and money.

d

I think therein lies the answer. The government (federal and state) databases already have enough information on each one of us that, put together, would provide a very good profile. The have our tax records, how long we have lived at a residence, which I'm sure is now being cross referenced in some data base, the guns we have registered, cars registered, it's all there. There should be no need to supply anything, they already have it! It should be a matter of the government gathering the information they have... then score us and we go on from there.

That's a foolish and simplistic asumption.

Nowhere near as foolish or simplistic as your above rebuttal. I'm sorry, but using a pool cue to hijack an aircraft is indeed idiotic. I guess I could try to draw you a picture, but FT is somewhat graphics-limited.

Where do you get this idiotic idea that randomness equates to un-American?

EVERYONE is searched as EVERYONE must pass through the magnometer and have their carry on items Xrayed. The EXTENT of the search varies based on a number of criteria including the results of the magnometer and Xray inspections, profiling, and random selection.

Gee, maybe we should apply your brilliant logic to driving, home ownership, park access, etc. You can contend that that the non-invasive and non-intrusive magnetometer and x-ray checks are "searches" that are as acceptable as a frisking or an opening and rifling through of a bag. Sorry, I don't buy that for a second. The latter examples of searches are un-American because they are not based upon probable cause and because of their degree. Random checks fly in the face of this country's principles, even if they are being used to backstop a process that is not 100%. And said process would be a lot closer to 100% if we focused on real, credible threats instead of mindlessly going after penknives, hockey sticks, and cricket bats. Such are the current "threats" as perceived by cowards who jump at shadows.

There is an established figure which represents the value of one airline passenger's life which is used in doing the cost/benefit analasys which determines if saftey changes will be mandated. The problem with terrorist attacks is the multiplyer. Will it be one passenger killed on the airplane or 3000 people killed on the ground?

What, with a pool cue? Come on! Even one would be a reach. I guess you could put someone's eye out; is that in your risk analysis??? We're wasting all this money on "threats" that *might* injure a couple of people on a good day while annoying and inconveniencing thousands who use these devices lawfully! Meanwhile, how many are dying of cancer because there's no cure? Would not this largess extorted from the traveling public be better spent or cancer research than on a "threat" that has less than a trillionth of a chance of succeeding???

they get killed one or two at a time on the ground not 3000 all at once. People driving cars, using machinery, etc. have significant control over their own safety, people in an airliner or ground target do not.

What about buses? Or people in enclosed areas like stadiums? Or small children? (won't someone please think of the children???) If you think people are completely helpless on a plane, try starting some trouble on one sometime. You'll see exactly how much control the passengers have over their lives, especially when confronted with a non-credible threat like a knife or a crazy person. Maybe not so with a bomb or a missle, but definitely with respect to these joke weapons the TSA is so ardently and idiotically prohibiting.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

I support reasonable precautions, too, as you know from reading hundreds of my previous posts here. Fortifying cockpit doors, for instance, is a great idea. Instructing pilots to land immediately in the event of an attempted hijacking is a great idea. Even arming pilots isn't too bad; it beats having armed, easily identifiable sky marshals in the passenger cabin.

But "randomly" searching people like Dan Quayle and Al Gore -- and have you noticed how they always go after celebrities? -- is nonsensical. We KNOW that these people are NOT terrorists, so why search them? Are we concerned that Al Gore may have decided to become a terrorist since losing his bid for the White House? Seriously, is there ANY justification for searching a well-known person who is without question not a threat?

That sort of thing has made me lose confidence in the "security" procedures. Too much of what they do is ineffective window dressing and, even worse, class warfare. I don't need it, and neither do you. It does nothing to keep us safe.

Bruce

I'm sorry, but using a pool cue to hijack an aircraft is indeed idiotic.

A pool cue could be an effective weapon and since there is no reason to need a pool cue in the cabin there's very little lost in requiring them to be checked.

Gee, maybe we should apply your brilliant logic to driving, home ownership, park access, etc.

I'm not aware of any situation where every home is searched so I don't know what you're babeling about there but there are legal road blocks which search every car with the extent of the search being determined by factors such as what they see, how you act, and random selection.

The latter examples of searches are un-American because they are not based upon probable cause and because of their degree.

The xray and magnometer searches also lack probably cause. That leaves the degree of search as the only difference. Why does the degree of the search cross the line into "un-American"? Why is one search without probable cause OK with you while another is "un-American" because it lacks probable cause?

Random checks fly in the face of this country's principles

Which prinicpal is that?

if we focused on real, credible threats instead of mindlessly going after penknives, hockey sticks, and cricket bats.

Hockey sticks and cricket bats are quite obvious and easy to find, they also make effective weapons. Looking for them takes no attention away from the search for other weapons. Knives can be quite difficult to find on an Xray and can be very effective weapons in trained hands.

What, with a pool cue?

Why are you so hung up on the pool cue? Strong sticks make effective weapons and no airline currently offers inflight pool tournaments so there's little reason to allow them in the cabin. What possible objection could you have to checking a pool cue?

We're wasting all this money on "threats" that *might* injure a couple of people on a good day

It doesn't cost any money to print "pool cues" on the list of prohibited items. Find a real argument and quite repeating these rediculous red herrings.

Meanwhile, how many are dying of cancer because there's no cure?

I've long known that you're an idiot, now you're trying to convince me that you're a socialist idiot?

How do you propose that this money be directed to cancer research? Perhaps the government should stop spending money on anything EXCEPT cancer research? When that's cured we can move on to Spiff's next biggest threat? Seriously, what's the logic to this argument?

What about buses?

What about them? Busses have brakes. Busses can stop in a few seconds. Busses hold only 30 or 40 people. Busses are not sensational terror targets as are airliners. A bus can be stolen relatively easily so there's little reason to hijack one.

How about dropping the rediculous hyberbola and talking about the real issues.

Why is one search without probable cause acceptable to you but another is "un-American" because it isn't based on probably cause?

1. If the search is truly random then Dan Quayle or Al Gore would have the exact same chance of being selected as anybody else. If they are to be excluded then the search isn't random.

2. If some screeners are picking passengers by unapproved methods then they are the problem, not the procedures that they aren't following.

Do you really expect them to publish a list of celebreties who are exempt from screening? That's rediculous. Can you imagine the critisism that would generate?

Instead of presenting the rediculous extremes, how about an argument as to why including random selection as one of the criteria for extended checks won't improve the detection rate of the screenings?