What is too much invasion of privacy/civil liberties for the sake of security?

[skunk]

This is a carry over discussion from the body scanner thread(s).

What would be considered too much for folks?

Body scanners in airports are fine, because flying is not a right, its a privilege.

So what is too much?

Body scanners at home? DNA testing? What?


Are we discussing body scans or other types of security measures?


Just in general, I am not singling out any particular piece of technology/behavior.

[skunk]

Would you consent to be scanned to enter all federal buildings? Schools? Your home perhaps?

Where do we draw the line?

[Lexion]

Meh, it's an individuals choice.

We can be tracked on the net.

Is that an invasion of our home ?

There are traffic cams.

Is that an invasion of our homes,
by proxy ?

I have no problem with either.

[mur]

Are we discussing body scans or other types of security measures?

[skunk]

One has to assume the net is public domain, and therefore, little to no privacy.

When it comes to one's own body, I think there needs to be a line drawn in the sand.

I don't like traffic cameras, because they're used mainly as a revenue-generator, but I see their point in terms of finding out where accidents are, etc.

[skunk]

Are we discussing body scans or other types of security measures?

Just in general, I am not singling out any particular piece of technology/behavior.

[pack3tg0st]

I would concider it 'too far' when its impossible to avoid...

When it becomes necessary to submit simply to survive... than that is too far...

i don't have a problem with luxuries such as flying have these sort of 'conditions' attached...

Some states, and all federal facilities have what is called an 'implied consent' law... meaning, if you get in your car and drive on public streets or a federal facility... you're giving consent to a search of your blood for traces of alcohol. (Thats how DUI checkpoints dodge the probable cause legality)

Whats the difference?

[skunk]

I would concider it 'too far' when its impossible to avoid...

When it becomes necessary to submit simply to survive... than that is too far...

I hope it doesn't come to that point, and I hope that we all agree that is too far.


i don't have a problem with luxuries such as flying have these sort of 'conditions' attached...

Some states, and all federal facilities have what is called an 'implied consent' law... meaning, if you get in your car and drive on public streets or a federal facility... you're giving consent to a search of your blood for traces of alcohol. (Thats how DUI checkpoints dodge the probable cause legality)

Whats the difference?

Driving is considered a privilege as well, I suppose we should mandate body scanners in automobiles too?

[skunk]

Although I'm not sure there is much of a difference in terms of "implied consent". Pretty fucked up way to skirt the law.

[hp]

Although I'm not sure there is much of a difference in terms of "implied consent". Pretty fucked up way to skirt the law.

That is what my state says. I suppose on state highways it seems right but what about local government roads. A car search should not be implied.

My property is a different story. It ends at my gate. Although a game warden has powers to enter by law. This seems a bit far without probable cause.

[skunk]

That is what my state says. I suppose on state highways it seems right but what about local government roads. A car search should not be implied.

But you might have illegal drugs in the car (god forbid), and even though the police may only be looking for drunk drivers, they can and will search your car for contraband.

[hp]

I don't search people or vehicles that enter my property. May be just because almost no one ever comes here.

Wonder if I should put up an explicit sign so that no one, including the law, can enter without my consent.

[hp]

But you might have illegal drugs in the car (god forbid), and even though the police may only be looking for drunk drivers, they can and will search your car for contraband.

probable cause. If not drunk, they cannot search.

[skunk]

I don't search people or vehicles that enter my property.

And you have no reason to either, nor does anyone else.


Wonder if I should put up an explicit sign so that no one, including the law, can enter without my consent.

Like a sign will stop johnny law?

[hp]

I could search you if I wanted. My place.

Police cannot enter with out cause and a search warrant.

[skunk]

probable cause. If not drunk, they cannot search.

Police can claim probable cause for just about anything. Stop you for a taillight, search your car for drugs because they suspect you were driving stoned/drunk, even if its not the case.

[skunk]

I could search you if I wanted. My place.

Police cannot enter with out cause and a search warrant.

Of course you can search them, I'm saying you would have no reason to. I don't imagine you get yourself mixed up with the wrong crowd too often.

[hp]

Police can claim probably cause for just about anything. Stop you for a taillight, search your car for drugs because they suspect you were driving stoned, even if its not the case.

Not here. There must be a reason to search, booze, the smell of pot.

[skunk]

Not here. There must be a reason to search, booze, the smell of pot.

You've never heard of a cop lying in order to search a car?

[hp]

If charges are to be allowed. If they break the rules then the case get thrown out, mostly.

[hp]

When I drank, I got stopped for suspicion. I passed the field test. I was asked to allow a search. I agreed thinking it might help my case. I was on the way to camping at my place. I even told the man I had a handgun. (Within my rights). They were interested in drugs and saw my story was true by the equipment I had. Was allowed to leave.

I wouldn't put myself in that position today.

[skunk]

If charges are to be allowed. If they break the rules then the case get thrown out, mostly.

Mostly is right...Its your word versus the police officer. Who is more credible/believable in court?

[hp]

Yep, with out witnesses. Driving around with drugs or contraband is dumb. People who have that stuff should keep it at home. Of course I suppose there is the one procurement run.

[hp]

What about people doing drive bys. If it is rampant in you area, would it be wrong to check vehicles for the type of weapons being used to help protect the people?

If several guys are in a car weapons and are just driving around town with no purpose then that seems to be a mistake on their part.

Could it be that the fact that people avoid helping to identify crime actors is forcing more and more searches.

[boycotteverything]

Would you consent to be scanned to enter all federal buildings? Schools? Your home perhaps?

Where do we draw the line?You draw the line at refusal. Don't wanna be searched? Then don't enter. Is there something hard about that? If you don't want TSA to see your little weiner then don't fly.

[Paroxysm]

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/my_first_cavity_search.jpg

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/3/28/cavitysearch128511932026718750.jpg

[guinnessford]

i feel anything to do with your home, like a random search.

also feel most of the airport security shit is more of a waste than an invasion, since the last asshole with a muslim name, and on a watchlist, that had his dad warn officials about, FAILED.

why take my shoes off, when this assclown got thru.

[hp]

The point about illegal searches holding up is scary. The law officers should be held to a high standard. Any transgression should be severely punished. Otherwise that field of work is not for the person.

[guinnessford]

i see that law getting bent more often.

shit used to get tossed on the whiff of a wrongful search, now theres that "plain sight", and "relevant finding" bullshit....

[skunk]

You draw the line at refusal. Don't wanna be searched? Then don't enter. Is there something hard about that? If you don't want TSA to see your little weiner then don't fly.

Read the whole thread before you comment next time.


Are we discussing body scans or other types of security measures?


Just in general, I am not singling out any particular piece of technology/behavior.

[skunk]

Let's hope it doesn't come to this, from the body scanner thread.

Would everyone be ok with this kind of technology?


Right... because nobody ever had an idea this shit was coming.

http://ajfederation.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fullbodyscan.jpg

[Lexion]

Let's hope it doesn't come to this, from the body scanner thread.

Would everyone be ok with this kind of technology?

Yep.

Shows off my hips.

[skunk]

I can see your brainz.

[Lexion]

I can see your brainz.

What brainz ?

(in first)

[guinnessford]

that was total recall, right?

[Cogburn]

Let's hope it doesn't come to this, from the body scanner thread.

Would everyone be ok with this kind of technology?

When you submit yourself to a corporate entity for the sake of their product or as an employee, you voluntarily give up certain protections under the law.

@GF: Yes, Total Recall.

[skunk]

Heh, I found a clip from that scene.

7CX9Agzeh-c

[pack3tg0st]

We still talking about 'slippery slopes' in here?

[Cogburn]

We still talking about 'slippery slopes' in here?

Only if the airlines were run by the government.

[skunk]

TSA is a government entity though.

[Cogburn]

Where does TSA get the authority to do what they do?

[Lexion]

Fuck, Pack.

I can't hide shit.

Therefore, I have no reason
to try.

Civvies think this shit is invasive ?

I've given foot prints, full hand prints,
retinal scans (every three years) voice
scans (every two years) and bodily
verification of modifications; IE tats,
piercings, scars or "other".

Just to maintain a clearance.

People are freaking over nothing.

[skunk]

Lex, that's your choice.

[skunk]

Where does TSA get the authority to do what they do?

Homeland security?

[Cogburn]

Homeland security?

Show me the law that mandates that TSA be present in every airport.

[Snow Crash]

Lex, that's your choice.

There it is. The magic fucking word.

[skunk]

I don't think there is a law. But they're present at every international airport, and as far as I know every domestic one as well.

[Cogburn]

I don't think there is a law. But they're present at every international airport, and as far as I know every domestic one as well.
Except that's the important part.

It's a legitimate question and I'm not claiming that I know the answer.

Given that pre-9/11 security was a function of the airport itself, what is the legal authority that provides the usurpation of such security for the insertion of TSA in its place?

Something tells me this is like seatbelt legislation: whereas states would not get federal funding for highway maintenance without seatbelt laws, I think that federal funds to supplement airports may also be under similar threat if TSA is not present.

If you're truly compelled to research it, I'd be interested in your findings.

It could very well be that TSA has no legal authority what-so-ever except that directly provided by the airport in which they operate.

[Lexion]

Lex, that's your choice.

So is flying.

[hp]

Under the law that created TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the TSA administrator is responsible for overseeing aviation security (P.L. 107-71) and has the authority to establish security procedures at airports (49 C.F.R. § 1540.107). Passengers that fail to comply with security procedures may be prohibited from entering the secure area of airports to catch their flight (49 C.F.R. § 1540.105(a)(2)

Guess it is the Aviation and Transportation Security Act

[Snow Crash]

So is flying.

Actually, for some its a vital part of their working lives.

Or should they lose their jobs because they object to this facist shit?

[Lexion]

Actually, for some its a vital part of their working lives.

Or should they lose their jobs because they object to this facist shit?

Video conferencing ?

It's "green", too.

[skunk]

So is flying.

Yes I know that.

Cog, HP beat me to it.

H.R. 2200: Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2200)

Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0313)

This bill is the first reauthorization of TSA since it was created in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s107-1447) (PL 107-71). (In 2002, TSA was moved into DHS when the Department was created.)

[Snow Crash]

Video conferencing ?

Ha

Ha

Haaaaaaaaaa....

[Lexion]

Video conferencing ?

It's "green", too.


Ha

Ha

Haaaaaaaaaa....

Gee.

A solution gets laughed at.

How Western.

[skunk]

What's this "western" kick you're on about lex?

[Lexion]

Hush, Skunk.

[Snow Crash]

Gee.


A solution gets laughed at.



How Western.


Thats cos it wasn't a solution, it was you being a smartarse lol.

But anyways, do you think someone should be fired for not agreeing to be scanned?

[Cogburn]

Groovy.

Just to keep it tidy.

49 C.F.R. § 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.
Title 49 - Transportation



Title 49: Transportation
PART 1540—CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY: GENERAL RULES
Subpart B—Responsibilities of Passengers and Other Individuals and Persons

Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 1540.107 Submission to screening and inspection.

No individual may enter a sterile area or board an aircraft without submitting to the screening and inspection of his or her person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area or aircraft under this subchapter.

[67 FR 41639, June 19, 2002]

Where is the legislation that mandates TSA personnel at checkpoints?

There's specific wording for surface transportation, but that's probably covered under some commerce code. However, I don't see anything beyond mandating that TSA create training programs for all aviation security personnel and cabin crews (Sec 224).

[hp]

This is San Antonio, TX in 2004. Looks like the TSA is not going to continue operating the checkpoints.


WHEREAS, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (the “Act”) requires that law
enforcement officers be posted at all screening checkpoints at the San Antonio
International Airport (SAIA); and
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2003, the TSA approved the reinstatement of the Airport
Checkpoint Security Program at SAIA and a new reimbursement agreement for Fiscal
Year 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council passed and approved Ordinance No. 98204 of September
25, 2003, to authorize the execution of the new Law Enforcement Personnel
Reimbursement Agreement with TSA; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to City Council’s approval of the Agreement, TSA made
unilateral and substantial changes to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) desire to
negotiate and execute a revised Law Enforcement Personnel Reimbursement
Agreement (the “Agreement”) pursuant to a mutually negotiated Checkpoint Security
Program for the SAIA and in accordance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, the revised Agreement increases the funding for Fiscal Year 2004, and
provides for reimbursement/payment
of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) at a fixed
hourly rate instead of salary computations; and
WHEREAS, the TSA no longer wishes to exercise federal supervision and control over
LEOs at checkpoints and therefore the federal Request for Representation and
Substitution and Worker’s Compensation provisions of the Subject Agreement have
been deleted; and
WHEREAS, the LEOs will remain under the supervision and control of the Airport
Police, all other changes in the revised Agreement are beneficial to the City, and the
revised Agreement is recommended for City Council approval;

WHEREAS, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (the “Act”) requires that law
enforcement officers be posted at all screening checkpoints at the San Antonio
International Airport (SAIA); and
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2003, the TSA approved the reinstatement of the Airport
Checkpoint Security Program at SAIA and a new reimbursement agreement for Fiscal
Year 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council passed and approved Ordinance No. 98204 of September
25, 2003, to authorize the execution of the new Law Enforcement Personnel
Reimbursement Agreement with TSA; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to City Council’s approval of the Agreement, TSA made
unilateral and substantial changes to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) desire to
negotiate and execute a revised Law Enforcement Personnel Reimbursement
Agreement (the “Agreement”) pursuant to a mutually negotiated Checkpoint Security
Program for the SAIA and in accordance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, the revised Agreement increases the funding for Fiscal Year 2004, and
provides for reimbursement/payment
of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) at a fixed
hourly rate instead of salary computations; and
WHEREAS, the TSA no longer wishes to exercise federal supervision and control over
LEOs at checkpoints and therefore the federal Request for Representation and
Substitution and Worker’s Compensation provisions of the Subject Agreement have
been deleted; and
WHEREAS, the LEOs will remain under the supervision and control of the Airport
Police, all other changes in the revised Agreement are beneficial to the City, and the
revised Agreement is recommended for City Council approval

[hp]

Could this not be screeners but the actual additional LEOs that are needed for arrests?

[guinnessford]

im too tossed too read it.

sorry hp

[hp]

Here it is...

The Screening Partnership Program, also known as SPP or Opt-Out, is a unique approach to providing security screening services for air passengers and baggage. Under the program, an airport operator may apply to have security screening conducted by personnel from a qualified private contractor working under Federal oversight.
The program was designed to meet the requirement of the "opt-out" provision established by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (http://www.tsa.gov/research/laws/law_regulation_rule_0010.shtm), or ATSA. Airport operators have been able to apply to SPP to use private screeners since November 2004. Private contractor screeners are currently in place at nine airports across the country, combining private-sector operational expertise with TSA's technology, experience and resources.
When a contract is awarded to an SPP airport, TSA works with the airport management and a qualified screening company to make a cost-effective and seamless transition from using TSA Transportation Security Officers (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/people/tso.shtm) to using private security screeners (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_news_employment.shtm). Once the transition is complete, TSA's Federal Security Directors (http://www.tsa.gov/join/careers/careers_security_jobs_fsd.shtm) ensure all security standards are met and maintained.

[hp]

TSA Week at a Glance: 01/25/10 to 01/31/10



5 artfully concealed prohibited item found at checkpoints
17 firearms found at checkpoints
21 passengers were arrested after investigations of suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents

[guinnessford]

thank you!!!!

[guinnessford]

think the black/yellow is messin with me a bit too..

[torbjon]

Skunk:

I got no problems playing by other peoples rules when it's Their Sandbox. If a websites T&C pisses me off, and I can't get them to change it, then I don't go there. Airports, busses, taxis, trains, etc are Privately owned, therefor it's their sandbox and they get to make the rules. I can't drink a cup of coffee on the subway. It's a stupid fucking rule but oh well, it's Their sandbox.

When we get out into 'public domain' areas, say, BLM land, or public parks / buildings etc. then I'm a 'look but don't touch' kinda guy... ie. PASSIVE scanning is fine, this is 'natural'... look (visible spectrum light) listen (sonar) smell (sensing heavy airborne particles) are fine by me... if a freeking DOG can do it, then anyone can... INVASIVE scanning (x-ray, mri, cat, and other high energy particles which enter the body, along with the rubber glove up the ass etc.) I would like to be notified of Before the act.

I'm already ticked off by the shear volume of microwave and other high energy transmissions that I'm being bombarded with Against My Will... blah.

I can't carry my fire arm onto their plane, but they get to bombard me 24/7 with their radio chatter, landing beacons, etc. fuck that noise.

In general, I choose not to interact with the bulk of humanity. Worthless bunch of sods the lot of 'em.

[GeneralStriker]

Airports... are Privately owned,what planet do you come from?

[Snow Crash]

what planet do you come from?

Unfortunately, comrade general, it si true that all major airports, at least in the UK, are owned by corporations.

[GeneralStriker]

it's definitely not the case in the US. All major airports are government owned.

[Snow Crash]

it's definitely not the case in the US. All major airports are government owned.

Eh... British Privatisation for you.... BAA used to be the biggest airport operator in the country, but they've just had their operation broken up by the OFT here, if memory serves.

[torbjon]

so, mr. tizzy fit, what exactly is it that the AMR Corporation owns?

[torbjon]

and the UAL Corporation owns what?

[GeneralStriker]

airlines

[GeneralStriker]

Who Owns and Operates Airports?



In the U.S., most airports are public non-profits, run directly by government entities or government-created authorities, known as airport or port authorities.

Commercial Airports are operated by 1 of 6 entities:


City -- 33% are city-operated. Examples include Atlanta and Austin.
County -- 15% are county-operated. Fort Lauderdale and Las Vegas are examples.
State -- 7% are state run. Honolulu and Anchorage are examples.
Port Authority -- 9% use a port authority. Examples include New York City and Oakland.
Airport Authority -- 30% use an airport authority. Washington’s Reagan National and Dulles as well as Nashville are examples.
Other -- 6%. Examples include Dallas/Fort Worth, which is the result of contract between the two cities, and Monterey, Calif., which is operated by a special local tax district.

[torbjon]

ooo, aren't you just the perfect spotted dick. Fine. Let's make the tizzy mater happy.

AIRPORTS WAS A PISSPOOR CHOICE OF WORDS ON TORBJONS PART 'CAUSE HE'S JUST A STUPID FUCKING MORON.

Airlines are privately owned. you wanna get on that PRIVATELY OWNED AIRCRAFT you have to play by their rules because it's their fucking sandbox and that's how kids are.

[pack3tg0st]

Actually... I'm willing to bet it's the privately owned airlines that are putting the spin out there that this is somehow eroding personal freedoms...

[Snow Crash]

ooo, aren't you just the perfect spotted dick. Fine. Let's make the tizzy mater happy.

AIRPORTS WAS A PISSPOOR CHOICE OF WORDS ON TORBJONS PART 'CAUSE HE'S JUST A STUPID FUCKING MORON.

Airlines are privately owned. you wanna get on that PRIVATELY OWNED AIRCRAFT you have to play by their rules because it's their fucking sandbox and that's how kids are.

What's a tizzy mater? O_o

[skunk]

Actually... I'm willing to bet it's the privately owned airlines that are putting the spin out there that this is somehow eroding personal freedoms...

And why would they do that?

[pack3tg0st]

And why would they do that?

Because the airport charges them to use the airport itself...

Higher bills for the airport, means more cost to the airlines... higher airline ticket prices...

and ultimately, they know that people are sick of the security shit...

if they can get people 'mad' enough... maybe they can get the FAA to drop the idea of the body scanners...

[skunk]

It's not the FAA pushing body scanners, its homeland security and the TSA.

[pack3tg0st]

It's not the FAA pushing body scanners, its homeland security and the TSA.


Ok...

so same plan... diff gov't agency...

(And the TSA is part of the DHS...)

[skunk]

Yes I am aware of that.

[Cogburn]

Wacky. Really all an airport has to do is comply with minimum security guidelines as set in the TSA3.

I bet that's how SBA gets away with holes in its chain link fence made by college kids who like to sit at the end of the runway and smoke joints. Meanwhile there's airports like Phoenix SkyHarbor that make you go through security every 500 feet. Salt Lake City has smoking lounges on the terminal side of security. At McCarran you'd never know 9/11 happened, but I figure they've always had casino-level security. Orlando is like something out of Orwell's 1984.

No fucking wonder it is so random. I bet the amount of security checkpoints at any given airport is directly related to the number of local businesses that manufacture related equipment.

[anarch]

just to say Obama addressed this very question in his state of the union speech. To paraphrase : Our nations security is more important than upholding the value of civil liberty.

The usa is on course to resemble the UK or OZ...The infrastructure for a total surveillance society is already in place. All that is lacking is a few more laws to justify its dominance.

[skunk]

Related articles:

Report: U.S. Surveillance Society Running Rampant (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/us-surveillance/)

World’s Top Surveillance Societies (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/12/worlds-top-surv/)

Interesting map of surveillance societies around the world, from Privacy International.org (http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597)

http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/rankings2007/map.jpg

[Cogburn]

just to say Obama addressed this very question in his state of the union speech. To paraphrase : Our nations security is more important than upholding the value of civil liberty.

The usa is on course to resemble the UK or OZ...The infrastructure for a total surveillance society is already in place. All that is lacking is a few more laws to justify its dominance.

Right... and the right wing of the United States is just going to sit around and let that happen.

Those fuckers are already half-cocked for gunplay with the BATF or whoever decides to come knocking.

[Cogburn]

Skunk... you forgot the important chart... the one that shows how that is determined.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/rankings2007/table.jpg


Identity cards and biometrics
* Is there a national identity card, and does it involve biometrics?
* Is biometrics widespread? Are they implemented in privacy protecting ways or in surveillance-enhancing ways, e.g. Central databases?
* Is there adequate debate about the nature of biometrics or is there a blind faith in the technology and an imperative based on international obligations?
Wait a second, how did the US score a "extensive surveillance/leading in bad practice" rating in this category?

We don't have national ID cards, other than passports.
"Biometrics" includes fingerprints and DNA samples. Consult findlaw.com for further information.
Blind faith in biometrics? With our court system? Not fucking likely. That shit gets challenged every time someone has the money to hire the expert-du-jour.

I bet if we did ratings for just the countries in which the members of AmKon live, we'd get much different results.

[skunk]

We did pass the REAL ID act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act), although according to wiki 25 states have "approved either resolutions or binding legislation not to participate in the program."

The new passports do have microchips in them though.

[Cogburn]

Passports have been evolving ever since international maritime travel in the 16th century. That doesn't bother me.

I want to make a thread on American civics. Enacting a law means nothing unless it is enforced by the executive, and it lasts only so long as it is upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

It's meaningless until it is enforced. Orwell's 1984 it's not; Sword of Damocles, perhaps.

[Hobbit]

The question has to be why we need these things –

The answer is invariably to protect public safety. Now look at how many people are killed each year in the states, UK etc by terrorism – how many planes have been brought down since 911.

Now if the next thing is that a terrorist has been found to have carried a biological agent within his body – are DNA and other test routinely required?

FEAR breeds these types of control systems and a fearful society is much easier to control

[pack3tg0st]

FEAR breeds these types of control systems and a fearful society is much easier to control

I think only people who watch faux news are afraid that the terrorists are going to get them...

And exactly what 'control' do you think is happening that you haven't consented to?

[torbjon]

What's a tizzy mater? O_o

an incredibly twatish Terminator...

"I'm Leaving! I'm Leaving! I'm Leaving! I'm Leaving!.... I'll be back"

[cartoon]

I think only people who watch faux news are afraid that the terrorists are going to get them...

And exactly what 'control' do you think is happening that you haven't consented to?
one more Binny-bomb and it's over...

[Hobbit]

I think only people who watch faux news are afraid that the terrorists are going to get them...

And exactly what 'control' do you think is happening that you haven't consented to?

Our whole lives are controlled from one degree or another - from education systems, religion to the monetary ties to Jobs and mortgages. Such is life - all societies from the Greeks to the Romans operated similar techniques.

I’m not overly concerned at all; I’m just a plebe and as long as the Government do not interfere with my ordinary day to day life I’m a contented little plebe.:D

The real problem with many of these things is when for whatever reason, colour creed, religion, political or moral beliefs you become the target/suspect then the PTB can really twist the nail. This is where many see the dilution of such freedoms being detrimental in the long run –

Who polices the police.

[skunk]

I think only people who watch faux news are afraid that the terrorists are going to get them...

That's not true. There's plenty of people who don't watch fox, and are still afraid of the boogey man getting them.

Some of them are here on this very board...Afraid of the ghost in the closet.


And exactly what 'control' do you think is happening that you haven't consented to?

A fearful populace can be swayed into doing just about anything.

Patriot ACT 1&2 come to mind.

[anarch]

For all the invasion of privacy and new regulations it doesn't seem like it has done a damn bit of good.

from yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100512/od_nm/us_egypt_airport_arrest;_ylt=AsgsShCj2SFj30Orpv7I7 yTtiBIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJ0cGI0a3BhBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTAwN TEyL3VzX2VneXB0X2FpcnBvcnRfYXJyZXN0BHBvcwMxMARzZWM DeW5fYXJ0aWNsZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA2Z1bGxuYnNwc 3Rvcg--)

Wed May 12, 11:39 am ET
CAIRO (Reuters) – An Egyptian-American was arrested at Cairo airport on Tuesday night after arriving on a direct flight from New York carrying two pistols, 250 bullets, two swords and 11 knives in his luggage, airport officials said.
It was not immediately clear how Mohamed Ibrahim, a university botany professor teaching in the United States, was able to get through security in New York and board the plane.
Ibrahim, who is of Egyptian origin, was detained on accusations of trying to smuggle the arms into the country. It is illegal to import weapons into Egypt without a permit.
No other details were available of the New York airport involved or the airline.


Airport Security Fail.

[hp]

What is too much invasion of privacy/civil liberties for the sake of security?

Considering a child a terrorist for drawing stick figures. Guess some adult got a authoritarian burr up the butt and found some fodder.

[guinnessford]

We have already passed the "too much" mark, I think.

[MrPenny]

How 'bout if it isn't even for the "sake of security?"



Google says it has scooped up snippets of people's online activities broadcast over unprotected Wi-Fi networks during the past four years. The admission made Friday is likely to raise more worries about potential privacy breaches as Google gathers volumes of personal information through its search engine and other services. HERE (http://www.salon.com/technology/google/index.html?story=/news/2010/05/14/us_tec_google_privacy)

[guinnessford]

Shoulda been encrypted, I guess.

[MrPenny]

Shoulda been encrypted, I guess.

True, can't argue that. But why does the Google Streetview crew even have equipment along that is capable of doing that? For what friggin' reason would the process require that capability?

[guinnessford]

Big brother....

Im sure the excuse is to send back data gathered by the camera.

[Trauma Teased]

True, can't argue that. But why does the Google Streetview crew even have equipment along that is capable of doing that? For what friggin' reason would the process require that capability?

I have been wondering about the same thing. I have tried to search for information about the cars and excactly what kind of technology they equipped with. I haven't been able to find much.

Perhaps someone smarter than me, someone who would know better which search words to use, could find something?

[BE2]

Fuck the google snoops and the horse they rode on. I mean- do we really need this street view picture of Trauma Teased's house? Gimme a fucking break.

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/9/inupiat-eskimo-igloo_438.jpg
Mr. Teased applying a fresh coat of slush to the family home

[Trauma Teased]

Fuck the google snoops and the horse they rode on. I mean- do we really need this street view picture of Trauma Teased's house? Gimme a fucking break.

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/9/inupiat-eskimo-igloo_438.jpg
Mr. Teased applying a fresh coat of slush to the family home

Yeah, that's right. Mr. Teased prefers to keep himself busy outdoors. Cause I'm inside our lovely home, BITCHING!

:D

[BE2]

well, i understand that. but at least you could feed the livestock for crissakes.

http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM130W/02-MMM/Measure/PolarBearIgloo.jpg

[Trauma Teased]

well, i understand that. but at least you could feed the livestock for crissakes.



I did. Mr. Teased is missing in that pic, see? Better him than me, that's my motto. Cause I'm a damn bitch.

MOAHAHAHAHA!

[BE2]

jesus. what a bitch...

[hp]

True, can't argue that. But why does the Google Streetview crew even have equipment along that is capable of doing that? For what friggin' reason would the process require that capability?

Exactly. I'm gonna go with purposeful. Asshats.

[MrPenny]

Wired.com has some more indepth information about the Google Streetview thingy...


Google disclosed at the time that in addition to taking pictures, its camera system collected certain data about local WiFi networks set up in neighborhoods where the cameras traveled. That data included the SSID (the network’s name) and the MAC address (a unique number given to each WiFi router) and was collected to improve the location-based services it offers consumers.


Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/google-street-view-cams/#ixzz0o28Iwsri

[Trauma Teased]

Wired.com has some more indepth information about the Google Streetview thingy...


Thanks for digging up more info, MrP.

[Infinite`Eternal`Forever]

When trivial stipulations are introduced into the security measures, then it becomes too much.

[Paroxysm]

When they start giving the 1yr olds cavity search's...they may have taken it too far:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/2266194806_a6871cf028.jpg?v=0
Who wants to be the first to scream 'child porn' and point their finger at me? :rolleyes:

[Chorlton]

This is a carry over discussion from the body scanner thread(s).

What would be considered too much for folks?

Body scanners in airports are fine, because flying is not a right, its a privilege.

So what is too much?

Body scanners at home? DNA testing? What?

Anal Probing