What is Digg?72 Comments
- PongGod, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44I think citizen lynch mobs would do the trick!
- Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+40Tom's and Elizabeth's closing comment is probably the most important part of the article:
"...let’s assign a team to each and every member of Congress, the Supreme Court and the Oval Office. Now these are the suspicious characters! They need to be watched for our protection!"
Amen. But who are we going to report them to that we can trust?? - PantherX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31I'm always nervous about flying, and it's not because I'm scared that the bad men will blow my plane up either... it's more about the wings suddenly deciding that being attached to the rest of the plane isn't in their best interest... and then the sudden impact when the plane hits the ground. Actually, it's just the ground impact that worries me.
Oh, that and now I have to fear being fearful... which frightens me. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18No worries, mate. The aircraft (boeing 777, 757, 747 etc) have to undergo test winds that of a strong hurricane.
The wings are massively strong, and I have never heard of an incedent of the wings of a commercial airliner coming off in-flight. Considering there have been hundreds of flights a day for the past 30 years, I'd say you have a much better chance of having a heart attack right now.
Crap, that will make you more scared... - quirk3k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I hate to be the lone objector here, but this technique works. To my knowledge, none of the other airport security techniques has ever caught a terrorist, but behavioral screening has. In Israel, terrorists strapped with bombs have been detained and disarmed successfully. In France, Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was detained by a behavioral screener [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/07/reid.timeline/index.html]. The police couldn't find anything (I guess they didn't look in his shoes) so they let him board the plane.
Think about it, checking IDs, bomb detection, metal detectors, random searches all have failed to catch a single terrorist. It seems to me, the government does these things as a way to inconvenience terrorists, not as a way to catch them. If we could stop using all the bad techniques which fail to work, and start using one that actually has a chance at stopping a terrorist from boarding a plane, I think everyone would be much better off.
The real problem is this new technique is hard to teach and hard to learn. In America, we don't seem to value our security enough to pay for good screeners in our existing system. I hope with behavioral screening they will spend the cash to hire good people. - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18This article is a prime example of fear mongering.
"I wasn’t aware of Bush’s bold new security program when, last month, I flew back to the U.S. Had I been aware, I would have been **doubly afraid.** "
Mr. Chartier spends most of his time ranting about poor, frightened victims being harrassed as they nobley attempt to board their flights, yet he openly admits failing to notice anyone being carted off to be "rubber hosed" in a back room, let alone "creepy security agents" giving him the "stink-eye."
This article rants about procedures Mr. Chartier clearly has no knowledge of. And it's no wonder.......here are the credentials offered that apparently qualify him to critique airport security techniques.
"Tom Chartier played lead guitar in legendary Los Angeles punk band The Rotters for 26 years until their final appearance in January of 2004."
Marked as LAME. - artman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Thank God there's someone here that sees through the *****. If there is anyplace that needs more security and surveillance, it is at airports. If we had the system of security at EL AL airport pre-9|11 it probably never would have happened. Sure it's restrictive, time consuming and uncomfortable. But you have to understand that terrorists do not want to expose themselves and do not want their intensions known. I guess the writer of this article (and 80% of Digg) wasn't born when Palestinian terrorists were hijacking and blowing up planes and shooting innocent people with sub-machine guns in airport terminals.
Airport security, when done correctly and with professionalism can deter terrorism.
Final thought, I DO NOT support spying on American citizens or the other dismantling of freedoms this administration is doing. I just believe that security at airports are a sign of the times. Get used to it. - sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act."
I recommend reading: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/what_the_terror.html - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Yea. I have no fear in flying, but this is going to cause horrible problems if my mother ever visits me in Japan in the future -- she's deathly afraid of flying, and now she'll have to deal with both flying AND the TSA!
That said, if it encourages you, only 30% (I believe that's the number -- it was on Mythbusters) of people die on impact in a plane crash. The rest die of smoke, fire, or other complications. So, if you're in a plane crash, get the hell out of there! Even if your legs are broken (which they likely will be)! - mikejohnston, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The author makes an argument for his own paranoia. It sounds like however he is the guy in front of you at the security line that takes FOREVER to move forward, therefore you are delayed.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You'd better hope no one has hyperhidrosis nowadays -- they may dump their hands in the trash can, incase of hazardous liquid bombs.
- JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5People who seek out power over other people tend to have sociopathic traits... we see that from our congressmen, Presidents, police officers, etc.
When our country was founded, there was no such thing as a "career politician". Various esteemed members of the community were voted into office for a few years, and then they left Washington to return to whatever their real career was (merchant, doctor, lawyer, etc). I think that's a much better system. Power corrupts those who wield it, and it's best if a person not get too used to being that powerful. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Amen. But who are we going to report them to that we can trust??"
The American people. This used to be what the media did. Now they just tell us what horrific death we should be afraid of today. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Wow! No details at all! Which airport? Which country are you flying to/from?
Hell people are now going to say they are infringing on my RIGHT to travel on an airplane. The same people say they need to provide more security but don't screen poor old grandma and don't profile but get the bad guy... oh did I say guys I don't want to sound sexist... bad guy/gals.
I call BS on this article. I fly every week and have never seen this. How do we know this flight see saw was under extra scrutiny? I welcome the extra security after walking through TSA's minimum wage operated security check-point.
We can learn a lot from Israel's airport security. For the most hated country surrounded by fanatic enemies EL AL hasn't lost one plain to terrorist since the 70's. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I've been involved in aviation for almost twenty-five years. I know licensed aircraft mechanics which I wouldn't let work on a tricycle, licensed pilots to whom I would not loan my truck and aircraft which only deserve that title out of respect for their age.
I don't fly. - KriLL3.2™, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Just when I started reading the artice, iTunes's shuffle switched to "Beatfreakz - Somebody is watching me",
Having agents that detain/question people on supposed behavior alone sounds a bit 1984 to me. - truax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The title does makes it sound alot like 1984
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You've got us right here. We "just believe" and we are as relentless as Lew is.
Thanks for your comment. - JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Anyone have any stories with people with hyperhidrosis (excessive facial, palm, etc sweating) and what kind of a time they have at the airport post-9/11? I wonder if these same behaviour "analysts" that are hired even know what it is.
- JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yay for false dichotomies
- NismoDrift, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7wow every time another supposedly "terrorist incident" happens we lose another freedom or get more inconvenience. First, no liquids aloud, now people staring you down. The next time I go on a plane and I notice someones staring me down, I'm going to say something. They do something to me unexplainable, oh well that's the ***** government for ya. "Lets say USA is freedom land and keep taking away freedoms til' we control the people."
- Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How is it marked down just because he is a "consumer?" What, you would rather have a government agent tell you it sucks? I would rather have customer feedback because THEY GO THROUGH THAT *****! He travels all the time since he is a musician. I bet he does know more than you(since I doubt you travel on plane as much as he does) about the workings of the TSA. My experience myself the last time with the TSA was actually *****. They seriously have no security at O'hare.
The solution I believe libertarians are asking for is not elimination of security at airports. It's calling for the elimination of the TSA and having the airlines be responsible for their OWN SECURITY! In this way, airlines will probably attract more consumers because they will ensure that you don't get treated like a criminal AS WELL as keeping you safe. - tmanka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This backs up claims from @marvin69
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al#On_the_ground - UtterNoncesense, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I have to agree - Bruce Schneier has long been a proponent of behavior profiling vs random searches.
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0508.html#1
As long as they realize that they're going to have false negatives AND false positives, this is a step in the right direction. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I quote the movie "Canadian Bacon"----
"This man was arrested for being in too many bad moods"......... - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@Koosebane
That is an excellent assessment of this article.
Kudos to you! - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7So we're finally getting one step closer to what El Al does. FINALLY!
***** this ***** we have now. Profiling works people, it just does... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's easy to be persistent when you believe in something as strongly as libertarians do. The irony is that we believe your liberty is more important than anything we could personally gain by the use of force. You can be a libertarian and never need to violate anyone else's rights to life, liberty or property. However, you cannot be otherwise without advocating some degree of violence against others as a means to some perceived socio-political end. No one can force you to participate in libertarianism, but, with the exception of anarchy, forced participation is the central element in all other socio-political philosophies.
- tmanka, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@marvin69
Couldn't agree more.
I fly twice a week every other week. I would rather see this in place then any other security measure. - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I disregard nothing.
I point out fear mongering from both sides. In this case, there is no evidence of fear mongering from anyone except the unqualified author.
"They do it too!" is not a valid excuse.
And I've got news for you.....attacking ANYONE is wrong. In the civilized world, we solve our differences and make our voices heard at the voting booths. Everyone gets one vote. There is no need for violence.
If you attack and murder ANYONE to blackmail free people into serving your own purposes, you are a terrorist.
You put far too much stake in fantasy situations and condone violence against your fellow man far too readily. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Nazism? Guantanamo's a nasty thing, but it's a far cry from Auschwitz or Dachau.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All this extra security stuff just makes the lines longer, doesn't make us safe and make the airports hotter and more full of sweaty travelers... As a hyphidrosis sufferer, I hate these new security measures.
__________________________________
http://www.megadry.com - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The irony is that we believe your liberty is more important than anything we could personally gain by the use of force."
That is so true. We are spending so much of our time trying to convince them that their liberty is important, and all they have to do is understand it. We aren't asking them to vote or demonstrate or donate money or take any other action. All we want is for them to stop being victims in any way they choose.
It's rather amusing that there are people who respond to that by complaining that they have to glance at too many articles to avoid reading anything from LewRockwell.com or mises.org. It's even weirder that there are a few people who are so opposed to liberty they take the time to try to bury all liberty-oriented articles. How strange is that? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Supernova17 = spam. S/he doesn't read the articles and therefor has nothing important to add to the comments. Perhaps some logical debate from him/her in the future? I doubt it.
- JJorsett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The Israelis have the right idea: find the bomber, not the bomb. Instead of trying to anticipate every possible way people might conceal a weapon and get it aboard, they "profile", interview, and observe in order to eliminate the people themselves. It demonstrably works, since they haven't had a single hijacking. Those complaining about their behavior being scrutinized are essentially saying they don't want TSA using every tool at its disposal, and especially this proven one. That's nuts.
And by the way, if you think this program is "Bush's" and won't continue on into the next presidency, Democrat or Republican, that's not nuts, it's stupid. - TheFox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3People would often give up their freedoms to live a comfortable life. A modern day Animal Farm is unfolding before us.
- Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll agree to joybran's comment with regards to his analogy. I have said that libertarians need to start acting like terrorists in the sense that we only attack government.....which logically, is not terrorism.
But if you remember Joy, Britian couldn't really be considered a "foriegn government." The people fighting it initially came from britian. Very few if any of us are truly "natives" to the united states. So I don't really see Britian as a "foriegn government" when the sons of liberty fought against Britian. - Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2koosebane, it's not even about the technique itself. I don't know why you call that fear mongering when our GOVERNMENT already does enough of that. You bash him for doing fear mongering of the TSA, yet, you disregard the fear mongering our government has put us through. Through this, people have given up even the most basics of freedom in order to keep us safe. This is how the government becomes stronger and becomes bigger.
I also do not understand why my last post about terrorism against government got put down. It's true people. When a group attacks the government, It's not terrorism. I think of V for Vendetta when it comes to a group(represented by V) attacks the government. I remember conservative groups and others calling V's actions terrorist actions. To me, this is *****. Attacking your government is not terrorism. Simple as that. Unless someone can explain to me how attacking a government IS terrorism. - Jesty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Questioning people to ask them why they are nervous with police scares is about as helpful towards freedom as shooting people in the streets is.
- sk1d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What I'm scared of is some tired, overworked, underpaid person, who's flight's been delayed, and is about to be late for his connecting flight and having security go through all of his private info on his computer and being felt up at the metal detector, getting his food taken away, then having having someone else come up to him and take him aside because he looks angry/nervous while constantly checking his watch and cell phone because he's about to miss his flight. When that stewardess asks him for $5 for a coke and $10 for a sandwich on the flight, that's what everyone should be scared of, because when that guy completely loses it and blames it all on the government/large corps trying to screw him, we've just got our selves another Timothy McVeigh (OK City bombing of a government building)
- dallsop, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1http://www.sudormaterial.info UK lingerie store
- LiterateWolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Same here. I guess a phobia of flight supports terrorism. I'm sure Bill O'reilly would agree.
- aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3good point. this is something that actually works. the worst that can happen is IF someone who is innocent gets tagged by one of these screeners they go through more questions and another search. is that really so terrible?
- tropican8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Quite frankly I'm not concerned, I'm assuming the difference is pretty evident between someone nervous about normal stuff and someone nervous with a bomb strapped to them.
Shouldn't they have been monitoring suspicious behavior for a while though? That's kinda concerning IMHO.
Really you can either watch people by what country they are from or how they act. There's no third option. There are still 100+ ways of getting bombs and weapons past those dinky x-ray machines, trying to say that's enough is like saying you are able to find a needle in a haystack. - larah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3nothing new, this is a technique thats employed in israel to stop terrorists and being tried in the us now... cant just rely on physical appearance or detection... just one additional factor...
- artman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Oh poor you. Sorry the terrorists have changed your travel plans. Don't whine, don't gripe...adapt. Deal with it. Don't bring anything on board until the restrictions are lifted (and they will). And don't get uppity on a plane. You are only making things more difficult for the air personell and the air marshals.
Again, airport security has nothing to do with your freedoms. It's security that if done correctly and with professionalism can deter terrorism.
/grow up too - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"And I've got news for you.....attacking ANYONE is wrong. In the civilized world, we solve our differences and make our voices heard at the voting booths. Everyone gets one vote. There is no need for violence."
I agree that attacking anyone is wrong and that there is no need for violence, but I have to disagree about the voting booths. Voting does not make us free when we are only allowed to vote for people who all want to enslave us. You have to use other non-violent solutions.
"If you attack and murder ANYONE to blackmail free people into serving your own purposes, you are a terrorist."
The suicide attackers of 9/11 were terrorists because they killed innocent civilians in order to terrorize the American people. If they had attacked US military installations in their own countries, which is what they claimed to be protesting, they could not logically be called terrorists.
And yet, we are calling Iraqis who attack US forces in Iraq terrorists. Xevec is right that, by that definition, the American revolutionaries would be called terrorists, even though they were fighting against a foreign government occupying their land. While attacking innocent civilians is always wrong, there is a moral difference in defending against attacks by a government. To use Xevec's analogy, V is only justified in his violence if no innocent civilian or his property is harmed. - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The ability to carry a suitcase and ride on an aircraft is NOT qualification to assess behavioral profiling.
That is exactly why this individual chose to focus on his own fantasies toward the imaginary victimization of poor, frightened, oppressed travelers instead of choosing to voice problems with the technique itself.
He doesn't have a fecking clue about the topic he is discussing.
The fact he is a career musician does a great deal to explain his ignorance.....and the final affirmation of why we should disregard this heated exploration of paranoia and distrust of authority as astoundingly dim fear mongering. - Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3WTF is wrong with you people? Are you that crazy that you are willing to give up your freedoms(like the right to not be searched without your consent and the right to your privacy) if you can feel safer? I don't care if somehow, these tactics will make us safer. It DESTROYS freedom. The TSA has no right in airport security. I don't want to fly a plane and the government treat me like I'm some criminal. That's *****. The airlines should take hold of their own security. Stop having my tax dollars pay for child molestors(TSA).
I feel the EL AL thing is some stupid thing that people are praising that we will later find out is oppressive. It's the same thing with sweden and their socialist system....the soviets and their socialist system(hey, we had intellectuals as well as well-known and prestigious journalists praising stalin for his "enlightened society." Read up on it in the "politicially incorrect guide to american history" by Thomas Woods.)
I will give my personal experience with the TSA(this is from O'hare international Airport).
First of all, it's ***** that I have to take off my shoes. Seriously, how far will it go. Like I saw one poster on digg say, I can't wait until a terrorist woman hides bombs in breast implants. Then the TSA will announce every woman will need to be frisked in the boobs in order to get into security. My father's sleeping machine(sleep apnea) was checked by the TSA because they said "they all need to be searched." Never gave us a reason why either. Seems very arbitary to me.
If I may refer to you to the child molesters(TSA) let me refer you to a great article.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/perry6.html
This article is hilarious as well as true.
TSA: Terrorist Sex Advocates
from the article:
Apply here and we’ll give you power and hands-on (wink-wink) authority to terrorize customers. Here’s our funny inside joke: You can terrorize our customers and say (but only if you keep a straight face) that you’re terrorizing them "in the name of stopping terrorism!" We always laugh at that one at the end of the shift. One old geezer’s pace maker started acting up when we pulled him aside after he took too long to remove his shoes – oh, you should have seen him try to hobble to his departing flight after we gave him our special third-degree delay (we call these TDDs and they infuriate customers who must run to their plane after we feel them up for a few delaying minutes!).
Overall people, I would like to conclude this with a quote from ben Franklin(paraphrased obviously):
Those who wish to trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security. - enrlover, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5this is a poorly written article. no digg.
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is