Remove Advertisements

$10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Korola » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:20 pm

D3licious wrote:I just think there are better ways to dispute this new search process than resorting to pedobear references. I don't know if that answered your question or not.


You don't have kids do you?
Image
User avatar
Korola
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:57 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Jabari » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:23 pm

Flex wrote:
Fivelives wrote:You really don't get it, do you? People don't want strangers fondling their genitalia. Period.


Speak for yourself.

Hey, if you want child rapists grabbing your "stuff", I guess that's your call. *shrug*

http://www.winthroptranscript.com/2010/03/04/winthrop-man-sought-in-connection-with-child-rape-case/

Or you could simply let your girlfriend/wife have this happen:
http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2010-10-11/lawsuit-airport-search-indecent
(Yes, I am aware that this incident happened 2 yrs ago. Same agency.)

Enlightening Video:
http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=172648

d3licious wrote:Storing of the scans is the least of my worries. Why would you be worried about that?

Because you post nude photos of yourself and s/o and children online all the time already, right?

d3licious wrote:Nobody enjoys these searches. It is just a matter of me "dealing" with it.

He who gives up liberty to obtain temporary security deserves neither.
Most people want the wealth produced by a society with limited government distributed to them more generously by bigger government.
Jabari
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby d3licious » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:24 pm

Korola wrote:
D3licious wrote:I just think there are better ways to dispute this new search process than resorting to pedobear references. I don't know if that answered your question or not.


You don't have kids do you?


Actually if you scroll back a few pages I used that example as a great argument against the new search procedures. I do not have kids but I can understand the stance.
User avatar
d3licious
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:13 am
Location: WA State

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Fivelives » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:28 pm

I sure as hell hope not, Korola.

I don't think my stance is extreme, d3licious. It boils down to "I do not want to be sexually assaulted against my will". You still haven't answered my question, either: HAVE you ever gone through one of the TSA's "enhanced patdowns"?
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby d3licious » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:28 pm

Let us say photos of you "nude" were leaked on the internet.
What happens next? What is THAT NEXT thing that has you guys scared of an xray of your body on the net?
First things first.
Is your name attached to it? probably not.
Can they identify your face? probably not.
If identification takes place, AND someone you know finds it. Are you worried they will make fun of you? Will they not understand that you had no choice in the matter?

What is it?
User avatar
d3licious
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:13 am
Location: WA State

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Dorvan » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:31 pm

d3licious wrote:Nobody enjoys these searches. It is just a matter of me "dealing" with it. Also you must factor in WHY they are searching you. A cavity search before entering a prison is not the same as a cavity search to enter a public school. As to what I would consider too invasive? I do not know, I have never been put in such a situation as to find that defining point. I have seen a few of these searches take place in PDX, and I did not feel it was that bad. Fivelives has clearly taken an extreme stance, represented by the plethora of pictures and links he has posted, I just think there are better ways to dispute this new search process than resorting to pedobear references. I don't know if that answered your question or not.


I find the statements that people should be fine with others touching their crotch to be very disturbing. Ok, maybe you genuinely wouldn't mind (though I'll confess I find such statements a bit suspect when someone hasn't had to go through the procedure themselves). How would you feel about a stranger touching your girlfriend that that? Your mom?

At issue here is a tradeoff between security and privacy. The key question though is: how much security are we gaining, and how much privacy are we losing? This is a very invasive procedure, and the bar for legitimizing that procedure must be very high. Nothing about the way airport security works and the potential threats out there convinces me that the benefit of such searches (slim to none) justifies this kind of measure.
Image

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Moonlight Sonata Techno Remix
Scriggle - 85 Fire Mage
Fizzmore - 81 Mut Rogue
Adorania - 80 Disc Priest
User avatar
Dorvan
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8462
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:28 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Dorvan » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:32 pm

d3licious wrote:Let us say photos of you "nude" were leaked on the internet.
What happens next? What is THAT NEXT thing that has you guys scared of an xray of your body on the net?
First things first.
Is your name attached to it? probably not.
Can they identify your face? probably not.
If identification takes place, AND someone you know finds it. Are you worried they will make fun of you? Will they not understand that you had no choice in the matter?

What is it?


Privacy isn't something that needs justification...it should be the default state of affairs. If someone wants to take away my control over the way my body is treated, they'd better have a damn good reason for it. "Security theater" doesn't meet that standard.
Image

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Moonlight Sonata Techno Remix
Scriggle - 85 Fire Mage
Fizzmore - 81 Mut Rogue
Adorania - 80 Disc Priest
User avatar
Dorvan
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8462
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:28 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Fivelives » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:36 pm

I don't want to be stored as an image in someone's Wank Bank, whether there's identifying information or not. You're also failing to understand the implications here - Technology Marches On. The scans we're seeing are from first-generation AIT scanners. Imagine a few years down the road when the resolution and imaging technology improves. I'd be willing to bet my house on it being easy to identify someone based on facial features alone by then.

I'm curious now as well - where DO you draw the line? Would you be OK with me coming over to your place and checking the crack of your ass and your ballsack for bombs before you get into your car to drive to the supermarket? How about to work? Or maybe your uncle Bob's wedding? You don't know me from Adam. From your statements here, I'd figure you'd be pretty OK with it.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Koatanga » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:38 pm

Divorce the concept of 9/11 from this. Step back and take a "big picture" look at it.

Airports are not the only place where terrorism can occur. Would you submit to a body search to go to a football game? There are a lot more people in a football stadium than on an airplane, so it's a better target.

How do you think the high-res body scans would go at the Super Bowl? Do you expect the attending celebs would be happy to subit to that exposure (pardon the pun)? And yet would the Super Bowl not present an ideal venue for a terror attack?

How about subways? Those get attacked by terrorists. Should people go through that kind of search to get on a subway? What would that do to the morning commute?

Think of any place where a large number of people would gather for any event. Would "naked x-ray" and body searches be welcome at them?

Why aren't there TSA-like entities protecting football games, rock concerts, and your daily commute? Is it because that would be excessive and intrusive and violate personal freedom?

Then why is it OK at an airport? What is it about air travel that makes your rights less important? Are you less dead if you get blown up on the ground?
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby d3licious » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:43 pm

Dorvan wrote:
d3licious wrote:Nobody enjoys these searches. It is just a matter of me "dealing" with it. Also you must factor in WHY they are searching you. A cavity search before entering a prison is not the same as a cavity search to enter a public school. As to what I would consider too invasive? I do not know, I have never been put in such a situation as to find that defining point. I have seen a few of these searches take place in PDX, and I did not feel it was that bad. Fivelives has clearly taken an extreme stance, represented by the plethora of pictures and links he has posted, I just think there are better ways to dispute this new search process than resorting to pedobear references. I don't know if that answered your question or not.


I find the statements that people should be fine with others touching their crotch to be very disturbing. Ok, maybe you genuinely wouldn't mind (though I'll confess I find such statements a bit suspect when someone hasn't had to go through the procedure themselves). How would you feel about a stranger touching your girlfriend that that? Your mom?

At issue here is a tradeoff between security and privacy. The key question though is: how much security are we gaining, and how much privacy are we losing? This is a very invasive procedure, and the bar for legitimizing that procedure must be very high. Nothing about the way airport security works and the potential threats out there convinces me that the benefit of such searches (slim to none) justifies this kind of measure.



Excellent points, particularly the mother/girlfriend argument. I actually agree with you Dorvan, the balance between security and privacy needs to be defined before taking measures such as this. I do believe the new search procedure was a bit too drastic of a step. It seems that I am one of few that can just accept the current solution for what it was, an active attempt to increase secure flights. That being said I would still like to see changes made.
User avatar
d3licious
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:13 am
Location: WA State

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Dorvan » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:49 pm

Koatanga wrote:How do you think the high-res body scans would go at the Super Bowl? Do you expect the attending celebs would be happy to subit to that exposure (pardon the pun)? And yet would the Super Bowl not present an ideal venue for a terror attack?


I can see it now:

"Newly released documents reveal that the Janet Jackson incident was part of a pilot program for improved screening procedures at NFL games"
Image

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Moonlight Sonata Techno Remix
Scriggle - 85 Fire Mage
Fizzmore - 81 Mut Rogue
Adorania - 80 Disc Priest
User avatar
Dorvan
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 8462
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:28 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Fivelives » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:53 pm

Dorvan wrote:
Koatanga wrote:How do you think the high-res body scans would go at the Super Bowl? Do you expect the attending celebs would be happy to subit to that exposure (pardon the pun)? And yet would the Super Bowl not present an ideal venue for a terror attack?


I can see it now:

"Newly released documents reveal that the Janet Jackson incident was part of a pilot program for improved screening procedures at NFL games"


Lawl.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Shathus » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:54 pm

Koatanga wrote:Divorce the concept of 9/11 from this. Step back and take a "big picture" look at it.

Airports are not the only place where terrorism can occur. Would you submit to a body search to go to a football game? There are a lot more people in a football stadium than on an airplane, so it's a better target.

How do you think the high-res body scans would go at the Super Bowl? Do you expect the attending celebs would be happy to subit to that exposure (pardon the pun)? And yet would the Super Bowl not present an ideal venue for a terror attack?

How about subways? Those get attacked by terrorists. Should people go through that kind of search to get on a subway? What would that do to the morning commute?

Think of any place where a large number of people would gather for any event. Would "naked x-ray" and body searches be welcome at them?

Why aren't there TSA-like entities protecting football games, rock concerts, and your daily commute? Is it because that would be excessive and intrusive and violate personal freedom?

Then why is it OK at an airport? What is it about air travel that makes your rights less important? Are you less dead if you get blown up on the ground?


This. My thought has always been that the next big terrorist attack won't be by plane anyway, they've already done that and security is (in theory) improved on that front. The attack will come from some way that has not be anticipated. Train pulls into Grand Central and blows up, or a flyover at a football game comes crashing into the stands etc. So it's all "theater" anyways as Dorvan puts it.

I figured they're making the pat-downs more invasive to make the scanner seem like the 'better' option between the two. "Don't want to me molested? Just stand still in his box for 10 seconds while no one touches you! It's easy!"
Shathus
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:02 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Koatanga » Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:00 pm

Image
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: $10,000+ fine for deciding not to fly after all?

Postby Sabindeus » Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:10 pm

Koatanga wrote:Divorce the concept of 9/11 from this. Step back and take a "big picture" look at it.

...


Then why is it OK at an airport? What is it about air travel that makes your rights less important? Are you less dead if you get blown up on the ground?


I'm not sure I get this reasoning. The point of the TSA searches is not to protect people on planes from terrorists, it is to prevent structures on the ground from having airplanes used against them as weapons. The thing about air travel that makes your rights less important is the fact that airplanes can in fact be used to destroy large amounts of property containing huge numbers of people.
Image
Turn In, an NPC interaction automator - http://wow.curse.com/downloads/wow-addo ... rn-in.aspx
User avatar
Sabindeus
Moderator
 
Posts: 10470
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Delphineas, Thanehand and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Delphineas, Thanehand and 1 guest