Had a problem with those TSA Scanners? Just the tip of the iceberg.
Hidden Government Scanners Will Instantly Know Everything About You From 164 Feet Away}
1984, here we come! :banana:
Had a problem with those TSA Scanners? Just the tip of the iceberg.
Hidden Government Scanners Will Instantly Know Everything About You From 164 Feet Away}
1984, here we come! :banana:
The US is such a fucking shithole.
Jesus, compared to Ireland where you can get in if you show them your subway ID card.
Who cares as long as it protects us from the scary Muslims that want to take away our freedoms.
USA USA USA!!!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Xttyf9c8pB...0/redneck2.jpg
LMAOOOO
Nice one Gavin. All this post 9/11 shit is ridiculous. Drones, security, scanners, metal detectors.
Terrorists wanted to terrorize us so much that we'd abandon our precious "freedom" just to protect against an unrealistic threat.
They did pretty well! Good fight "Land of the secure, home of the pussies"!
So we get scared, and we send troops but we lock down on security so much that it harms our own people. At the same time, we're scared hurting innocent people in Afghanistan... To be honest- who cares. A military organization in THEIR HOME NATION attacked our home nation and killed thousands of innocent people. So, as long as Al Qaeda exists, the people that are close to them should be killed with them. Al Qaeda meeting in a city somewhere? to hell with sending in a SEAL Team. Carpet bomb the entire city block.
Maybe then, an apartment building landlord will think before letting Al Qaeda meet in one of his rooms. Oh, he didn't know about it? Maybe that will be incentive for land owners to be a little more unwelcoming of Al Qaeda's little plans and get-togethers.
Right now, for the average middleeasterner - it doesn't matter who wins the war. Al Qaeda wins, woopty do. U.S.A. wins, they come in and establish one of those little democracies they are so proud of. Woopty do. Either way, if they stay inside and don't fraternize with either side, they probably won't get hurt. And when it's all over, well whatever.
No. Let it be known to all people that they can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and let innocent people die. Let Al Qaeda think about whether it's worth it or not. Let people raise up arms in uprising. Let's go to WAR, and destroy anyone that thinks it's cute to mess with America!
That's what we were all thinking on 9/11/01. Now we think we're so special that we get to practice humane warfare and drag this war out forever while our security laws become more and more strict. We need to finish this before there are GPS systems in our teeth, and we're driving cars that pull themselves over.
Being able to detect various chemicals on my body -> being able to tell everything about me.
This is where the non sequitur happened.
There's terror afoot, and everyone's a suspect.
Um, all U.S. bashing aside, did anyone, including the OP'er, actually read the article? Aside from being breathless and based on pretty much nothing more than one company's (questionable) sales promo sheet, it says these scanners are specifically for searching for drugs and bomb-making chemicals on people at boarder crossings -- maybe.
Keep in mind that those full-body scanners they mention were invented a decade ago, and still are not in use ... one nice thing about the U.S. is that we may be dysfunctional and amazingly annoying (even to ourselves), but we're still a democracy and things like this have a very hard time getting implemented -- especially as the irrational "Patriot Act" fostering paranoia from 9/11 is finally simmering down.
So let's not complain until people start get cancer, and this actually matters. And lay off the U.S., too; we've got enough problems.
Alright but those full body scanners ARE in use. I have been asked to go through one TWICE. Both times, I refused, and was detained and searched.
I've been travelling by air for my entire life. And when I step foot into an airport, I suddenly feel less free. I feel as though I am the property of the state until I arrive at my destination. In an airport, you watch what you say... You watch what you do, and you don't mess with the security guards, or you will find yourself locked up in a room with a blast door, being asked questions by people with blue surgical gloves.
Sageous for president!
http://reparaciondepc.cl/blog/wp-con...-Yeah-meme.jpg
Twice ... you must travel quite a bit, given how few of those scanners are in place, or just be extremely unlucky ...
Okay. And as long as paranoia (or rather, profit from paranoia) reigns, these new scanners, if real, might turn up in the next decade or so. But can we panic about them then, instead of now? If the people don't care, and have an interest in catching smugglers, then they'll be installed regardless of the "Be Afraid" folks.
Oh, and yeah, I hear you on the rest of it ... I stopped traveling by air years ago, mostly from annoyance at the insane rules (why are we still taking off our shoes because some idiot failed to ignite his a decade ago?) and power-mad TSA employees, not to mention the airline industry's hub system/cattle drive. Even there I think we've got enough to complain about without inventing new ones.
Wasn't the group of individuals behind 9/11 not affiliated with the government?
Or we could simply stop implementing these ridiculous "security measure." Either/or.
wat
We should voice our dissent after these things are implemented... instead of doing so now in an attempt to prevent it from happening in the first place? ._.
Before is fine, but like the full-body scanners, there is not much sense in panicking over a hopeful manufacturers PR release. At least wait until someone remotely attached to the government, or the airlines, decides to announce its interest.
And yes, thanks to be a democracy, and a relatively discordant one, it does take a while for new "ideas," good or bad, to be implemented, if they happen at all.
This reminds me of the pre-crime scanners they want to put in street lamps.
That's true, but I'm not as concerned with the ethics of war as most people. I don't condone torture, genocide, etc. But I think that it's counterproductive to try and avoid civilian casualties in war. I'm suggesting that if our attacks hurt civilians too, then the government and population will take stronger measures to loosen their ties with terror organizations. The result will be that the general populations of countries we are fighting inside of... Will hate the United States for coming in and fucking shit up, but they will also hate these terror organizations for provoking us to come in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
Yep. That would work too.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinGill
I am from a Navy family. I've been travelling by air for my entire life. I even took a military airplane once(that was cool.. And loud). But ever since 9/11 I've been flying between Texas and Indiana, because 9/11 was around when my parents split up. Indianapolis has just constructed a brand new airport - and it is equipped with all of the top notch airport security technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
And you make a good point about "Power-hungry" TSA agents. They have no reason to show us any respect - and they don't. If you have a problem with it... I DARE you to try and raise your voice at a TSA Officer. See you in Guantanamo, bro! (Yeah that's an exaggeration. You won't go to Guantanamo for being an asshole, but there does exist the possibility of being sent to prison without trial and being subject to torture, if you give the government reason to believe you're a terrorist. And that's unsettling)
And Sageous, you say that it's just a manufacturer's hopeful press release.. But check out this video. In Indianapolis, I have been asked to go through one TWICE. Sure, you can refuse to do so - but they will make it a pain in your ass. Both times I refused to go through the machine, I was held up for a pat-down search, and both times I almost missed my flight due to the amount of time it took them to process me with the alternative methods. It's not just a matter of "No Thanks!" - "Okay :)".
The first time, I said I didn't want to do it, and they radio'd like 5 TSA agents to come take care of me. One of them patted me down while like 2 or three stood around guarding the perimeter. They asked to see my I.D., and when I went to go get it from my tray, one of the agents jumped in front of me and told me "Do not touch your property, sir. Tell me where it is." They examined my I.D., and radio'd that they were uncertain. I was pulled into a room on the side. We had to pass through a door which I swear was like 8 inches thick... A grenade could go off in there and nobody would know about it. They patted me down again, except more thoroughly, and released me just on time to do a the "hobo running to get on a train" maneuver to catch my flight. This whole process was done in front of my younger brother, who was clueless to the whole situation. And my mother, who was watching from the other side of security, knew nothing. All she saw was me get swarmed by TSA Agents, patted down, and taken to a back room.
The second time this happened to me it was a little bit easier. They sent some random dude to pat me down, but he took forever - and I was the last one on my plane again.
As far as the images staying on the computer for only 15 seconds, and being viewed from a separate room. Whatever... Even if the files are not kept... Submitting citizens to full body scans is not a reasonable measure in my opinon.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Bill S. Preston
Wait... No...
-Benjamin Franklin
I'm pretty sure that ignoring the content of the article and focusing on a sensationalist headline, as if it negates the actual point of the article, is old hat around here. We can get passed all that, yes? :-?
I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
No, what the article actually says is that the "Official, stated goal...is to be able to quickly identify explosives, dangerous chemicals, or bioweapons at a distance." How that implies to you that those are the only uses that will come out of this tool - given the governmental track record of 'slippery slope' security - is beyond me. In a society where the CIA Chief would 'spy on you through your dishwasher', if possible, to think that such impressive technology would only be used in such high-profile areas like boarder-crossings and the like, in the future, is quite a bit naive. I'm sure, at some point, security cameras in public places were only used to protect certain, designated areas. Now we have them on an increasing number of street corners. The argument could be made that this is no different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
The first UAV was invented in 1935. Drones are just now starting to fly over U.S. soil, doing routine surveillance - just now. What is your point? Government was so quick to implement them here, that they are already flying over us without active legislation on how they will or will not impede on personal privacy of citizens. (This article is a bit old, but it says the same as a political candidate that was on my local news the other day: there is No Privacy Legislation on these drones. They are not meant to invade personal privacy, but there is nothing in the books Stopping Them.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
And if it's a case of 'democracy working', then what is the difference, to you, between UAV's doing routine surveillance on the U.S., and having one of these 'scanners' at street corners, or attached to police cruisers? How about cellphone surveillance, which is ever on the rise? How about aggressively trolling social media sites for information on users? How about the implementation of cellphone kill switches? Of course, they are going to state the reasons The People might 'want' them to be used, but in a society where police constantly try to strong-arm people into not video-tapping them while they are working - which happens all the time (as does police misconduct, coincidentally), do you honestly think that such devices would not (or could not) be used for the purpose?
I'm all for running up and defending the U.S. when someone bashes it...if there is a solid case for their being no reason to doubt the motives of government. Unfortunately, to anyone paying attention, that case has been less than solid for quite some time now.
Okay guys. You win, I lose. The U.S. is a power-mad totalitarian institution bent on invading our privacy by any and all means possible and destroyng our freedom every chance it gets. Whatever you say.
Seriously, though, DreiHundert: I agree completely with your misgivings about the scanners and the almost bizarre level of security and attitude our airports maintain (even though my guess is that the next terror attack, should there be one, won't be from the air). I also understand your misgivings about the potential scanners; they especially make sense if you live among their potential operators every day. Our society is in a real trough when it comes to handling airport security, and fear in general, and it must no doubt be a real bitch to be exposed to it regularly.
Seriously, Oneironaut Zero, I offer only one minor note to your well-constructed and downrght chilling response: Yes, UAV's may have been invented in 1935, but the technology necessary to make them useful only emerged about 20 years ago -- the government wasn't sitting on their toy for 70 years until just the right moment; they would've used them aplenty in 1936 if they could have. Also, for what it's worth, that story about the EPA using drones to watch midwestern cattle ranchers turns out to not have been entirely true -- yes, the EPA was watching, but their planes had pilots ... I'm not sure this has any impact on your statement, though, as the threat of privacy invasion you discuss could certainly exist regardless.
So I give up ... I don't even know how I got here. I simply have better things to care about than whether "the government" is watching me or not; my secrets are simply not all that interesting, even to me. Let them look. Scanners at airports and the border, if physically non-invasive, have never seemed that big a deal to me; if some idiot gets off on blurry shots of my fat ass, let him have his moment, and if someone wants to confirm that my car at the border is made of the things its supposed to, well, I don't plan on doing any smuggling in the near future, so let them look -- and yes, let the traveler beware; but at least the trip will be shorter.
... and I'm not even a republican!
So have at it, share your perhaps paranoic or perhaps visions and discoveries of my definitely nosy government. I'll just gently tuck my tail between my legs and head on back to the dream forums, where at least I'll care about the shit I step in when I surely do.
I have a pacemaker for my epilepsy, which requires a pat-down every time. I can't go through the scanners. So I do the following:
- Get to the airport early, because I know TSA will be a pain in the ass.
- Get to the airport early, because I know the bus will be late getting me there.
- Get to the airport early, because I know the airline will fuck up my ticket.
- Register with the State Department Smart Traveller Enrollment Program (STEP) website before I leave
- When I buy my ticket, I double-check that the name on my ticket matches the name and birthdate I typed in from my ID (which is my passport).
- Confirm my flight before I get to the airport, if I can
- If I can't confirm my flight before I get to the airport, then I bring my passport and swipe it in the machine at the airport, which does most of the confirmation for me.
- If I notice that there is an "SSSS" (or even a single "S") in the boarding code printed on my ticket, I can ask to resolve the issue. I may be one of the unlucky folks who has been selected to run through security more than once; or it may be something resolvable by simply sitting in a different place on the plane; or it may be something unresolvable, such as I've been abroad for too long, and they will need to send me through customs and agriculture to inspect my baggage, or your name is something like "Mohammed".
You should try not to take dissent of government so personally. Remember, I live here, too. So when you say 'my definitely nosy government', you shouldn't say it as though I'm some outsider insulting your family. Our government is not your family, and you should not defend them so readily and emotionally. Paranoia and Blind Faith are polar opposites, and neither is less fallacious than the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
You should also really consider looking more into the trends of this great government of ours. I'm not saying 'it's all evil, blah blah'. I'm saying that there are certain trends (many of them kept as quiet as possible by The Powers That Be, until there is no other option) that paint a less-than-intrinsically-benevolent picture of how the elite 'govern' We The People. If it's a subject you'd just rather not know about, then that is fine, and certainly your prerogative. Just be careful about jumping on people simply because they are 'U.S. Bashing.' Many of them have extremely sufficient reason to.
Deja Vu? :-?
I'm sure you've been here long enough to know that I post the headlines to the articles I post in the forum. I rarely (if ever) put my own spin on it. I do it in the Science Forum. I do it in the Lounge. I do it Here. If you want your contributions to threads like this to be nothing more than stating the obvious, so be it. :cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
How the hell are you so calm all the time, Oneironaut Zero? It's kinda annoying. :poke:
Sorry, I had to come back for this:
I took things personally? I defended blindly and emotionally? What on earth were you reading? Yes I was sarcastic; no, I'm not buying into your paranoia; yes, I pointed out that "our" country (I said "my" because half the flags here were not American -- excuse me) has its problems, especially in this department of dealing with fear; and no, I never, ever, not even once, professed a word or intimation about family or blind faith (I believe, if you actually read my post, that I did pretty much the opposite). I was expressing an opinion, that was it. I think the real problem here was that it wasn't exactly yours.
I actually do follow these trends, with interest, intensity, an open mind, and as little fear as possible. I read more than what's available on the internet, listen with interest to all sides, and follow developments as well as I can. I would welcome a very long conversation about this, filled with actual facts and fascinating historical notes about how this stuff is nothing new. But I simply did not care to continue to try that here, especially when I discovered that the other participants were more interested in spreading yet more terror than calmly looking for the truth, much less listening to a single word I wrote.Quote:
You should also really consider looking more into the trends of this great government of ours. I'm not saying 'it's all evil, blah blah'. I'm saying that there are certain trends (many of them kept as quiet as possible by The Powers That Be, until there is no other option) that paint a less-than-intrinsically-benevolent picture of how the elite 'govern' We The People. If it's a subject you'd just rather not know about, then that is fine, and certainly your prerogative. Just be careful about jumping on people simply because they are 'U.S. Bashing.' Many of them have extremely sufficient reason to.
I also don't believe I jumped on anyone. Read the initial posts and tell me honestly that the U.S. in total wasn't being bashed. I wasn't speaking as a blind ignorant patriot, I was reporting what I read here.
Finally, in all I was not offended, emotional, or taking everything personally, but if it makes you feel better to assume people who write what I did must be so afflicted, then assume away -- Ours is a free country. As long as I'm here, do you know what does annoy me? The condescension and (utterly failed) attempt at mindreading you displayed on your post. I do ask you to refrain from that, Oneironaut Zero. You are not my better.
... And now back to the dreaming threads. I had a feeling jumping into an echo chamber like this was a bad idea, and I was right. Somehow I doubt you'll miss me.
Have fun, guys, and remember to keep your heads low, don't use a cell phone, and mind the probes! ;)
OOHRAH MOTHERFUCKERS! YEEHAW, LET'S GO BLOW UP SOME AY-RABS! 'MURRICA, WE DO WHAT THE FUCK WE WANT! WAR! WAR! KILL! KILL!
Off topic for a moment, if you were a manager of a hotel in, say, new york, and a mob boss came to you and told you they were going to start having their meetings there, do you really think you would just say no?
Back to the point. Let me ask you a question. Would you be willing to bow up a hotel near a major American city if the Al-Qaeda meeting were happening there instead?
Well don't, nobody wants to see any more propaganda articles with no content for an extended discussion in Extended Discussion.
Edit: I was just taking your word for it but I looked at the OP again and I'm not sure exactly how "1984 here we come" is supposed to be spin-free.
Article about electronic sniffer dog -> thought police.
This is where the non-sequitur happened.