Big invasion of privicy

They've had No Fly lists long before 9/11. I know this because long before 9/11 my mom decided to get some tapered candles as a souvenier. She furthermore decided to protect them by wrapping each one in aluminum foil. Of course when she packed them, she hand them in a bundle with a rubberband around them. To top it all off, she packed her alarm clock right next to it. I wasn't with her that particular trip, but she says when it went through the x-ray machine, they went nuts.

She's not on the No Fly list, but she is on the "watch this person carefully" list, and has been pre-9/11. Which is how they found all the fresh fruit she was trying to bring in a few years ago, but that's another story.

My point: Having a No Fly list may or may not be a bad idea (I personally have no problem with it, but I can see how people would), but it's certainly not a new one. Furthermore, having one based strictly on your name IS a bad idea (just ask Ted Kennedy). But there's no reason in the world not to give you your score and the reason you have said score.

Q: Even if we had a super-advanced No Fly list pre-9/11, would any of the 9/11 hijackers made the list? After all, they were just exchange students from the friendly nation of Saudi Arabia who happened to be learning how to pilot planes . If they can pilot them, why shouldn't they fly in them as passengers?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 2 2006, 06:16 AM) [snapback]356641[/snapback]</div>

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_al-Hazmi :

"The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had identified al-Hazmi as an al-Qaeda associate in early 1999. (London Times, 9/2002) Former Saudi Intelligence Minister Prince Turki al Faisal has revealed that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were put on a Saudi terror watch list in late 1999. He also said that he revealed this to the CIA, saying "What we told them was these people were on our watch list from previous activities of al-Qaeda, in both the embassy bombings and attempts to smuggle arms into the kingdom in 1997." The CIA strongly denies having received any such warning."

Not sure what the first sentence really means though, since the term "al-Qaeda" didn't exist until after 9/11, and its definition is so loose.

 

Speaking of invasions of privacy:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_de...d_pics_for_.htm

 

That has got to be one of the ugliest eunuchs or unsex I have ever seen. :blink:

I would be more worried about the safety of my hypothetical 17-year-old daughter wearing a thong bikini at the beach than I ever would with her standing in front of that machine at an airport.

The titillation factor for the “somebody” looking at those less than flattering images all day long has got to be somewhere near a negative zero.

If you really don't like the system, forget about international travel. :lol: According to CNN Headline News (now playing in the background) over a million of the machines are in operation around the world. A million sounds too high to me but, if it helps give the overly sensitive privacy rights advocates the willies. . . sounds like a good number to me. :lol:

Yes, there were those boys and girls who refused to fully strip in the locker room in junior high school in order to change clothes or take a shower. Are these complaints just a continuation of that prudish, childish behavior?

If given the choice between a physical patdown and standing in front of this machine, I'd gladly bend over and grab my ankles in front of that machine before I'd do it for some perv with cold, wandering hands.

 

Why DO conservatives hate America?

This key phrase from the above post may have a clue:

And therein lies difference between someone who loves their country and someone who loves bending over and grabbing their ankles when Big Brother tells them to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Dec 2 2006, 03:01 PM) [snapback]356727[/snapback]</div>

I'm trying to think of that quote, those who trade freedom for the illusion of security deserve neither... Anyone got a cite for me? Thanks!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Dec 2 2006, 03:08 PM) [snapback]356778[/snapback]</div>

You mean this one: “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither� Its Thomas Jefferson.

It is often cited in defense of the NRA and in opposition to gun control, as Jefferson also said:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in governmentâ€

See http://ww.thinkexist.com/quotes/like/a_soc...y_for_a/180724/ for the cite.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Dec 2 2006, 03:08 PM) [snapback]356778[/snapback]</div>

Sure, here's one you can quote:

"Those who wish to keep their delusion of freedoms, at the expense of real security, deserve neither."

-Sufferin' Prius Envy

These machines are not an illusion of security . . . they provide REAL security! <_<


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 2 2006, 12:48 PM) [snapback]356739[/snapback]</div>

You really don't understand the symbolism, do you. :huh:

I did start by saying, “If given the choice . . .†<_<

If I felt this machine were more invasive than a patdown or strip search, then my bending over and grabbing my ankles would be done as a “kiss my ass†protest, not because someone told me to do so.

Those of you who whine about this being some kind of Amendment IV violation need read no further than the first 11 words . . . “The right of the people to be secure in their persons. . .â€
Being that these machines are the best, and short of a strip-search, the only way to find ceramic guns, plastic knives, and liquid explosives hidden on a person's body . . . I say I have the right to feel secure in my person while flying in an airplane, and that EVERYONE should have to go through this new type of security examination.
*** How's that for twisting the words of Amendment IV? :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(stanlwyjohn @ Dec 2 2006, 04:35 AM) [snapback]356620[/snapback]</div>

Emphasis mine.

You've hit the nail on the head here. The reason the founding fathers put rights in the Constitution was precisely to protect us from exactly the sort of government abuse that W and his cronies want the power to perpetrate now. They want to gather information on people and keep that information secret, and they want the power to arrest people and hold them indefinitely without judicial review. They tell us they will only do this with "terrorists," but without judicial review, and without the accused having any rights to see or challenge the "evidence" against him, innocent people will spend the rest of their lives in prison.

A government that imprisons innocent people, in the name of security, is a criminal government, and a society that is willing to imprison innocent people, in the name of security, does not deserve to govern itself. And when all this is done in order to empower an environmentally-disastrous waste of non-renewable and dwindling energy resources, you've got a pretty good definition of evil. Hugo Chavez was right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 3 2006, 06:52 AM) [snapback]356932[/snapback]</div>

I would argue that the Founders did not add that to the Constitution, but that the system they established worked to good effect and the 14th Amendment and its "equal protection" clause came about in 1866. I hear we had a little "argument" right before this was adopted (I don't want to offend anyone by calling it a "war", since some say that war never solves anything).

It would be hard to make a case that certain interpretations of the right to privacy we find in that amendment were in the minds of the founders, or even the victorious states of the North when they passed the amendment after our little "argument".

But even with our expanded, new-age interpretation of the 14th, we still recognize that certain things are not "private" at all. Your trash, for instance. George Bush can come and look through your trash as soon as you put it at the curb (I've noticed he's been looking tired lately; he must be really making the rounds). Your financial records are another area where "constitutional protections do not attach", so we simply must quit complaining about tracking of international financial records when our domestic financial transactions are reported to the government routinely.

Personally, I would be for the x-ray/naked body machines. There is no reason the software can't be written to process the image to make it less sexy than our example here (bad example, but there are people who might look good in an image like that). Given the current trend to shorty tops for pregnant women, I don't really see what all the fuss is about (can someone tell them they are NOT Kate Hudson).

 

I'm not against the machines per se. If you're against the machines, are you also against metal detectors? I'd rather have a machine blow a puff of air on me than blow up in the middle of a flight.

HOWEVER... I am against Big Gummint doing draconian profiling. Noting the fact that I've called known terrorists is fine. Noting the fact that I called my aunt is not. Noting that I bought "Bomb Building for Dummies" and "How to Fly a Plane into a Building" on Amazon is fine. Noting that I bought "Dude, Where's My Country?" is not.

For those of you in favor of it, I ask you: Three years from now, do you really want President Hillary Clinton knowing the fact you bought a DVD of "The Best of O'Reilly"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 3 2006, 12:32 PM) [snapback]357067[/snapback]</div>

Personally, I wouldn't care if President Hillary Clinton knew what books I read. It may already be in the WHODB (or "Big Brother") private database they kept on about a half million citizens that was so controversial in their first Administration (mainly because they used White House resources ... employees and computer time ... to combine the database with the one from the DNC, making a massive "friends list" and, if you're not on it, an "enemies list" by default).

But the brohaha over that was overblown too. There's no evidence any of the intelligence being gathered then ... or now ... is being used for blackmail or other "negative" political gain, a la Nixon. There have been some serious mistakes in applying the existing laws to certain individuals, but that has been because of a lack of intelligence rather than because of a surplus of it.

Caution is good, and Congressional and specific FISA court oversight is good too, so I have no quarrel with that. But I think the fear that "Bush's goons" are going to rough me up because I'm reading "An Inconvenient Truth" is irrational.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 4 2006, 01:10 AM) [snapback]357251[/snapback]</div>

There have been instances of people being added to the no fly list ,merely for participating in anti war protest groups.
Certain environmental groups have been labeled "Eco-Terrorists".I fear they are being investigated with the same resources intended to fight real terrorists .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(stanlwyjohn @ Dec 2 2006, 07:35 AM) [snapback]356620[/snapback]</div>

Simple solution:

Offer two exact flights at the same time to the same destination. One for people who dont want their liberties and freedoms infringed upon and you just walk right on and have your luggage loaded direct from the curbside, and one where you are racially profiled, walk through the x-ray machine, through the sniffing machine, have your name cross referenced on each and every list by any and all governmental agencies, and have all your carry on and checked in luggage screened by machine and/or humans before you get on the flight. I will take the latter plane - feel free to take the former one.

 

Those who would trade liberty for the illusion of security deserve neither. Besides, hijacking planes is so 2001, as if passengers would ever let that happen again anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Dec 4 2006, 08:28 AM) [snapback]357308[/snapback]</div>

Lest you not underestimate your adversary.

I guess you would be flying my first aircraft Please feel free to take any liberty or security measure necessary to make sure I fo from point A to point B as safely as possible.

 

How can I find out my terror score? I know I can get my credit scores from 3 companies by send them letters every year. Can I use freedom of information act and get my score from US government?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Clar @ Dec 4 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]357347[/snapback]</div>

Buy an airplane ticket and try boarding the plane?

 

Does anyone know if I can take courses from Kaplan or Princeton Review to improve my terror score?