Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: NSA officers spy on love interests  (Read 1927 times)
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2013, 04:57:32 AM »
ReplyReply


For starters, it might be nice being able to fly without getting an unwanted scan or having to take your shoes off in public. You can get to hate people wearing trainers. You can get to hate them (terrorists) even more for messing up your daily life, making it more expenisve and way more inconvenient. The implication that terrorism only counts if it kills you is nave and simplistic.

Rob C
If I interpret your text correctly, then you seem to have misinterpreted my text. My point was not that terrorism does not affect society (it clearly does).

My point was that our fear for terrorists is largely irrational, our reactions to terrorism are probably the largest effect of terrorism on our society. If we have the choice between using "X" resources that decrease the chance of being hurt in a terrorist attack from 1/20000000 to 1/21000000 or using the same "X" resources to decrease the chance of being hurt in a traffic accident from 1/300 to 1/500, then it would seem to be a lot more sensible to do the latter.


Part of the problem is that we (the voters) usually don't get to know the cost vs benefit of such security. Security agencies may tell us that they have "stopped 100 potential attacks" due to a new surveilance system, a new law etc. Problem is, they may have an interest in lying to us. They may be lying to themselves. The politicians (often a select group of politicians) that have supported these changes also have an interest in sugar-coating the results, when have you ever heard of a politician saying that "the bill that I sponsored had only negative consequences, so I suggest we reverse it"?

I don't get to vote in the US, and the politicians of my country have little practical control over the levels of airport our security. But is there anyone anywhere that can say "no" to excessive airport security with a democratic vote? Or is this off the table for democracy?

I fear that illiberal politicians, bureaucrats and police (-like) people just love the opportunity that these terrorists gave them to increase their control and power over societies that have had (historically) unprecedented levels of true freedom. Of course, those of us who never did anything wrong don't have anything to fear when big brother knows our most intimate details. Yet.

-h
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 05:15:46 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2013, 11:22:42 AM »
ReplyReply

... You can get to hate them (terrorists) even more for messing up your daily life, making it more expenisve and way more inconvenient...

My dear friend, you do realize that is one thing terrorists are not responsible for. These are actions of our governments, too eager to show they are doing something, at best, or using it to inflame terrorism hysteria, as a smoke screen for power grab, at worst.

Those measures, our government forced upon us, as intrusive and inconvenient as they are, are equally inefficient (for their stated purpose, that is). Government own inspections have found that there is still a 40% chance of smuggling a gun or bomb into a plane. No, I am not dyslexic, it is not 0.4 or even 4.0, it is a whopping 40%.

One man put explosive in his shoes... millions are required to take them off year after year.

Tens of thousands die from guns every year... millions are required to do... nothing.

Go figure.

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2013, 11:44:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Indeed, it's our governments that give us airport security systems.

But surely, nobody here suggests that they do that for fun, to win votes? Consider the scenario if they did not introduce airport security: how many loaded shoes would have gone off by now, why would they even have needed to use shoes, when a thermos flask can carry so much more explosive? I mean, whodda thunk a flask could hold anything other than tea, right?

From my own point of view, if I am ever obliged to go on an aircraft again, I shall still resent the security inconvenience but understand absolutely the security man's job description. And be thankful that he offers whatever help that he can.

No, it's terrorism that created the travel situation, fogged enough of my film to be a problem; whether the security we have is miniscule in its effectivity isn't a reason to abandon it, it's a reason to improve it. Virgins in the promised land are still no great alternative to staying alive, even if popular conception suggests many believe the opposite.

I guess this is just another of those discussions where right and wrong depends on which moment in time you take to be the datum from which everything that follows begins.

Rob C
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5069


« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2013, 01:37:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks hjulenissen,

     according to that data, it is time for a War On Bees. And Lightening. And, dare I mention Firearms In The Hands of The Incompetent, Angry, or Stupid. Or actually, a War on Junk Food: see item #1.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 01:39:43 PM by BJL » Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2013, 02:05:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks hjulenissen,

     according to that data, it is time for a War On Bees. And Lightening. And, dare I mention Firearms In The Hands of The Incompetent, Angry, or Stupid. Or actually, a War on Junk Food: see item #1.
That is the core of my argument. There are many dangers in the world. We would be well advised to take actions against the most prominent ones (eat reasonable healthy, get some exercise, drive safely etc) if we want to have a long life without excessive pain or discomfort. Having absolute safety is impossible. Wasting your life, wealth, spare-time etc obsessing with miniscule threats is counter productive, as you are wasting e.g. time that should have been spent on the things that makes your life worthwhile. Our lifespan is, after all finite.

-h
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2013, 02:15:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Indeed, it's our governments that give us airport security systems.

But surely, nobody here suggests that they do that for fun, to win votes? Consider the scenario if they did not introduce airport security: how many loaded shoes would have gone off by now, why would they even have needed to use shoes, when a thermos flask can carry so much more explosive? I mean, whodda thunk a flask could hold anything other than tea, right?
They provide us with imperfect roads that cause death in the traffic. They provide us with imperfect airport security that cannot stop all terrorists. The rational viewpoint is to ask: "what is the cost, what is the benefit". If your government choose to use 1 billion on airport security that saves an expected 2 lives, while they could have spent the same billion on roads that could have saved an expected 10 lives, then they should be voted out of office.
Quote
No, it's terrorism that created the travel situation, fogged enough of my film to be a problem; whether the security we have is miniscule in its effectivity isn't a reason to abandon it, it's a reason to improve it. Virgins in the promised land are still no great alternative to staying alive, even if popular conception suggests many believe the opposite.

I guess this is just another of those discussions where right and wrong depends on which moment in time you take to be the datum from which everything that follows begins.
I am not saying that we should get rid of all airport security. I am saying that (unlike certain other things goverment do), it is very hard to _know_ if it is working and at what cost. I am saying that I _think_ that the cost vs benefit ratio is very low; it seems to me that it is largely about making us _feel_ safe. It seems to be some sort of selv-propelling "race" that is largely outside of practical political and democratic control.

If some people feel safer by being forced to wait forever in airport security and having to do various degrees of body searches, then that is fine by me. They may continue to do so as long as we others have an alternate entrance.

-h
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2013, 02:22:06 PM »
ReplyReply

They provide us with imperfect roads that cause death in the traffic. They provide us with imperfect airport security that cannot stop all terrorists. The rational viewpoint is to ask: "what is the cost, what is the benefit". If your government choose to use 1 billion on airport security that saves an expected 2 lives, while they could have spent the same billion on roads that could have saved an expected 10 lives, then they should be voted out of office.I am not saying that we should get rid of all airport security. I am saying that (unlike certain other things goverment do), it is very hard to _know_ if it is working and at what cost. I am saying that I _think_ that the cost vs benefit ratio is very low; it seems to me that it is largely about making us _feel_ safe. It seems to be some sort of selv-propelling "race" that is largely outside of practical political and democratic control.

If some people feel safer by being forced to wait forever in airport security and having to do various degrees of body searches, then that is fine by me. They may continue to do so as long as we others have an alternate entrance.

-h


AFAIK, for an alternative entrance you require a private jet.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2013, 07:19:50 PM »
ReplyReply

... But surely, nobody here suggests that they do that for fun, to win votes?...

Except me, you mean? And except I had in mind profit, not fun.

Quote
... Consider the scenario if they did not introduce airport security: how many loaded shoes would have gone off by now, why would they even have needed to use shoes, when a thermos flask can carry so much more explosive?...

Now consider this scenario: there already was a guy with a bomb in his briefs. The next thing would be, as many prisoners and smugglers already do, is to hide it "where the sun does not shine." The government response then? Body-cavity search for millions of passengers. But not to worry, I heard it would be a white-glove treatment. Oh, wait... latex glove... damn!

Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #28 on: August 31, 2013, 03:07:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Except me, you mean? And except I had in mind profit, not fun.

Now consider this scenario: there already was a guy with a bomb in his briefs. The next thing would be, as many prisoners and smugglers already do, is to hide it "where the sun does not shine." The government response then? Body-cavity search for millions of passengers. But not to worry, I heard it would be a white-glove treatment. Oh, wait... latex glove... damn!


That could make some of those millions very happy fliers! However, those rubber gloves keep me away...

But just as seriously, why do you think that any and all alternatives aren't already known and possibly used? You must also know that electricity and dampness aren't good bedfellows...


" "Over five thousand years ago Moses said to the children of Israel "pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land."

Nearly 50 years ago, Harold Wilson said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the promised land."

Then Gordon Brown stole your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of Camels, and mortgaged the promised land.

Now David Cameron has loaned my shovel to a third World country, (he hasn't realised yet that we are now a third World country), raised my fuel bills, lent my money to a crowd of incompetent, greedy "merchant bankers" and increased VAT to 20%.

I got so depressed last night I called the Samaritans, they diverted my call to a call centre in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal; they got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck." "

You see? We already have friendly enemies within...

;-)

Rob C

Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad