(11-17-2010 02:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-17-2010 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-16-2010 05:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  1. It's the people who fly a lot who complain the most about these infringments. We're the ones who are taking the risk, so yes, we'll settle for the consequences.

Except you aren't making that decision for yourself alone. You're making it for me as well on the plane, or even on the ground. You don't have the right to make that decision for me.

Yet you have the right to make that decision for me? How about this, if you don't think it's safe...then don't fly! Rent a car. No one is forcing you to fly on an "unsafe" plane.

Sorry, Torch... This is a REALLY poor argument. I agree with you on many things... but not this.

You can argue that these particular methods don't help, but you're not going to get a concensus that there shouldn't be security including SOME form of "scan" to fly. This has been the case for decades. Yes, the majority has ruled.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:2. If some people really want the added feeling of security, then let the market decide. Airline A can go lean w/ "just" the metal detector, luggage x-ray, and ion-mobility sniffer. Airline B can go crazy w/ their passenger x-ray, pat down, etc; and of course charge for all of it.

If your argument is that this doesn't improve security, fine... go be an adult and petition the TSA/government...

BZZZ. Fail. It's not my job to correct other people's mistakes.

So you didn't vote in 2010? Fine, don't correct them. You can be scanned, searched or go home. If you think something needs to be corrected, you need to tell them. This was said in response to someone saying they would make the screeners lives miserable in protest... as if it is THEIR jobs to correct other people's mistakes? Which is it? If you want something changed, you have to say so where it is appropriate. In line at the terminal isn't appropriate, especially in that it likely increases, not decreases security concerns.

Quote:

Quote: don't cause some scene at the airport and inconvenience everyone else.

But if you insist that it is my job, then don't criticize me for how I do it.

Causing a scene at the airport doesn't accomplish your "job". It merely wastes my time. I criticize your means because it is ineffective and pointless. You don't complain to your butcher about health department rules... you don't complain to your waiter about ABC laws... you don't complain to your State Rep about Federal laws... If you disagree with the 55mph law, complaining to the cop who is writing you a ticket isn't going to change anything.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:5. People should recognize that true security is an illusion. Bad guys can attack commuter trains, sports stadiums, or stopped traffic on the freeway. Planes aren't special.

well, yeah they kinda are.... but this kind of comment is just as bad as the paranoid extreme. You're BASICALLY arguing that you can't stop it, so just deal with it.

No, that's not my basic argument. That's your straw man. The point is that we do a very good job of reducing this using better decisions. But it's ridiculous to believe that we can get to 100%. And the costs (dollars, civil liberties, etc) involved in that approach are inappropriate.

Cheap airfare is not a civil liberty. I didn't create the straw man, I merely interpreted yours. If I did so incorrectly, fine.... but "security is an illusion" certainly is different in most people's minds from "it is ridiculous to believe we can get to 100%"... with the former implying that security doesn't exist, and the latter implying that you are only 99% secure.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Only through mass civil disobedience will this nonsense be stopped. Begging is not going to be effective. We must make the jobs and lives of those that are enforcing this outrage as uncomfortable as possible.

meh... First of all... air travel isn't protected by the Constitution..

No, but unreasonable search and seizure is. Done.

done but wrong.
decades of precedence defeats you.

(11-17-2010 03:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  done but wrong.
decades of precedence defeats you.

I despise any legal argument predicated upon precedence.

No way you're going to integrate schools. Decades of precedence defeats you. Separate but equal!!

You know what is going to cause the "Flying Public" to explode?

The TSA "gropers" get to continue getting their rocks off fondling passengers AND Obama lets them Unionize and join SEIU.

You guys are speaking as if you are being denied an inalienable right. You must be this tall to ride this ride. You can't bring alcohol onto a high school campus. You can't drive drunk. You can't bring a gun to a courthouse. These are ALL limits to your civil liberties, and SOME of them involve private, not public enterprise. The private enterprises, you don't generally NEED to do.

This is EXACTLY where the far left gets this "right to/obligation of healthcare" argument... and frankly, I think healthcare is MUCH more important than cheap airfare.

(11-17-2010 03:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-17-2010 02:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-17-2010 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-16-2010 05:53 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  1. It's the people who fly a lot who complain the most about these infringments. We're the ones who are taking the risk, so yes, we'll settle for the consequences.

Except you aren't making that decision for yourself alone. You're making it for me as well on the plane, or even on the ground. You don't have the right to make that decision for me.

Yet you have the right to make that decision for me? How about this, if you don't think it's safe...then don't fly! Rent a car. No one is forcing you to fly on an "unsafe" plane.

Sorry, Torch... This is a REALLY poor argument. I agree with you on many things... but not this.

You can argue that these particular methods don't help, but you're not going to get a concensus that there shouldn't be security including SOME form of "scan" to fly. This has been the case for decades. Yes, the majority has ruled.

Where did I say that there shouldn't be security, or even some form of scan to fly?

I'm not bothered by the metal detectors.

What I said was that if someone thinks, or more accurately, feels, that the existing security isn't secure enough, then they have the option not to fly, instead of imposing their irrational fears on everyone else.

(11-17-2010 04:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You guys are speaking as if you are being denied an inalienable right.

I most certainly am. My liberties are being imposed on. I have no option in this instance, as the gov't is imposing its will on me.

Look, I already said I'm fine if Airlines A and B want to compete based on their approach to security. Then everyone has their choice, and if my plane gets blowed up, well that's my consequence.

What I'm not fine w/ is some irrrational crybaby (or gov't tyrant) insisting that we all need to follow their path to security, especially when there's no evidence it offers any security.

And how my perspective is the same as the "logic" behind gov't healthcare eludes me.

(11-17-2010 03:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-17-2010 03:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  done but wrong.
decades of precedence defeats you.

I despise any legal argument predicated upon precedence.

No way you're going to integrate schools. Decades of precedence defeats you. Separate but equal!!

The precedence has decided that what you are calling unreasonable isn't unreasonable. It has been deemed that searching people before boarding a plane is reasonable, and you yourself have acquiesced to this for decades. You simply argue now that this method is too invasive... which is a perfectly reasonable argument... but not a Constitutional one. Your right to NOT be searched to board a plane does not exist... and honestly, given that we've already caught people with explosing shoes and underwear... the body scan makes perfect sense.

You talk about cost and effectiveness. I wonder what the effectiveness and cost of this versus "sniffers" is. I suspect it is worse, otherwise we'd be doing sniffers. It's not as if the government has some devious reason to want to put pictures of your "junk" into a database... and frankly, a sniffer can probably collect your DNA more easily if that is the goal

(11-17-2010 04:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-17-2010 04:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You guys are speaking as if you are being denied an inalienable right.

I most certainly am. My liberties are being imposed on. I have no option in this instance, as the gov't is imposing its will on me.

Sure you do, and I've said it numerous times. Drive, take a bus, don't go or charter your own plane from your municipal airport that doesn't have a body scanner. Even if you just fly to the bigger airport, you're already past security.

Quote:And how my perspective is the same as the "logic" behind gov't healthcare eludes me.

I don't believe you have a RIGHT to "free" healthcare. I believe you get it at the benevolence and expense of society... yet many argue that without healthcare, you are being denied the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Healthcare is thus a constitutional right. You are basically arguing that denying you the ability to fly, or even putting restrictions on it denies you those same rights. I do not believe that is the case.

If you'd like for "industry" to take over for the TSA, fine. Once again, screaming at the security agent isn't going to make that happen...

(11-17-2010 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Where did I say that there shouldn't be security, or even some form of scan to fly?

I'm not bothered by the metal detectors.

What I said was that if someone thinks, or more accurately, feels, that the existing security isn't secure enough, then they have the option not to fly, instead of imposing their irrational fears on everyone else.

Once again, take that up with your congressman, not the gate agent. I don't necessarily disagree... I just don't have any problem with the body scan either... and I don't want people imposing their (imo) irrational fears of a body scan on me.... and CERTAINLY not people like this guy who CLEARLY intended to cause a scene and waste my time because of his irrational fear that his "junk" might be touched.

(11-17-2010 04:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-17-2010 04:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-17-2010 04:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You guys are speaking as if you are being denied an inalienable right.

I most certainly am. My liberties are being imposed on. I have no option in this instance, as the gov't is imposing its will on me.

Sure you do, and I've said it numerous times. Drive, take a bus, don't go or charter your own plane from your municipal airport that doesn't have a body scanner. Even if you just fly to the bigger airport, you're already past security.

And anyone w/ an irrational fear about security has the same options. Why do they get to impose their paranoia or tyranny on me?

Torch...
You already subject yourself to a metal detector/random search/luggage check/swab. It has been determined (and is obvious) that weapons/devices/explosives need not be metal to be effective... in fact, this is specifically what they WOULDN"T do... so they have changed the scanner from a metal detector to a different method of detection. This is (in most people's opinion) a more effective way of accomplishing the same thing. Like instant replay reviewing a call, it STARTS with the status quo... and the status quo is people walking through a device (or series of devices) that "read" them.

Perhaps you're against regulation like this in its entirety. Okay. Unrealistic, but okay. Most objectors don't like it for any of a number of reasons, primarily a) what I consider to be an unreasonable fear of the waves or b) what I consider to be an unreasonable fear of someone seeing an outline of your junk. I don't mean that disrespectfully. Those are not irrational concerns... I just don't have them... and the fact that they grow out of existing technology and scans makes them reasonable to me. You disagree. Okay. You probably think you should have been able to voice your concerns BEFORE they went into effect. Okay. I agree. I think that is what is happening in DC right now. To be honest, I've heard about these things for years, and the "privacy" concerns have been raised.. so I don't think this is new territory.

What I DON'T agree with is that someone should cause a scene at an airport to voice their displeasure. The guy was given options. 1) take the scan 2) take the aggressive frisk 3) don't fly. He chose 4... make a scene, threaten to sue people (clearly raising the suspicion level and risking his freedom) probably delayed dozens if not hundreds of others, and likely caused traffic problems as reporters came to check it out... and THEN didn't fly. I'm sorry, but I see that as a HUGE waste of lots of people's time and energy.

You want to be against this, fine. No problem. Seriously. I completely understand. COULD it be taken to such an extreme that I would be against it?? Absolutely. If it came to a vote, and nobody presented compelling evidence that it helped, or presented compelling evidence that there was something else that was equally effective and less invasive, I'd be all for it. That doesn't happen in a sit-in at the airport, but in an organized discussion/debate... Personally, people's modesty (or religious doctrine) is on, but isn't very high on my list of reasons NOT to do something like this.

Torch, Hammy, I agree with each of your posts until I read the next one and change my mind because you're both right. In my opinion, the terrorists are getting their way by making us all change our lifestyles because we either risk getting blown out of the air or go through all this time consuming, costly, and possibly humiliating security. I miss the days when the biggest risk on a plane was a free but unexpected ride to Cuba.

What we are getting is kabuki security. If you inconvenience folks enough, they'll think you're actually doing something to make them safe.

I wish every American could go around the world and look at the way this is handled elsewhere. We put all our faith in the ability to scan people physically. Other places do a mix of scanning, interviewing, psychological monitoring, probably some profiling, explosives sniffing dogs, armed troops visibly present in terminals. That kind of defense in depth is much more effective. If that's too expensive, then doing each of these things for a random sample, with varying samples for each, gets you 99+% of the effectiveness for a fraction of the cost. Either way, a prospective terrorist has to prepare for all the techniques, and that's a whole lot harder than staying one jump ahead of the scanner police.

The solution here is mass naked protesting. Walk up. Take off all your clothes, and there is no reason for a scan or a pat down.

The fact is Torch is right. It is unreasonable because it does not make us any safer. Therefore it fails on its face. Are we to acquiesce to body cavity searches?