But it's a good thing.

Post #33,008 by Brandioch 3/21/02 12:17:24 PM Reply	But it's a good thing. The GPS in your car is so that it can be recovered. You want your car to be recovered, right? The GPS in your cell phone is so that the emergency crew can find you when you dial 911. You want the emergency crew to find you, right? The GPS in your body was put there when you were a child so if you were kidnapped, they could rescue you. You want the children to be rescued, right? Strange, if I have an anti-theft alarm in my car, and the thief manages to disable that.....why wouldn't s/he also disable the GPS system? It's always easy to trade your freedom and privacy for a SENSE of security. But are you REALLY any safer than you were? Effectively? In the US, you're still more likely to be killed by a family member than a terrorist.
Post #33,017 by Mike 3/21/02 1:48:29 PM Reply	Location, location, location You really are safer if you have GPS or if someone around you has it when you get into trouble. So often, people call 911 saying "I've seen an accident and I'm on the Turnpike.....ummmm.....well.....a few miles after ......errrrm.........wait........I just passed exit 38.....so it would be about three or four miles back from the next exit. Am I Westbound or Eastbound? Oh...well....errrrm East......no wait.... .....hang on.......... Fred are we Eastbound or Westbound? My husband Fred thinks we are Nothbound, does that make sense?" Also......service are beginning to get inundated with multiple calls for the same incident. What was one call 10 years ago is now 100 calls which they have to deal with in a very short window. GPS offers a glimmer of hope that they might be able to prioritize calls when they get a burst of activity from one particular location (ie. raise the priority of a solitary call above those which appear to be in very close proximity to an already-logged event). Definitely open to abuse by businesses, but I'll take that baggage. I don't care that people (or my spouse) know where I am. They do already. And when I go to the strip club I usually leave the phone behind :-) >>Strange, if I have an anti-theft alarm in my car, and the thief manages to >>disable that.....why wouldn't s/he also disable the GPS system? That's exactly what professional car thieves do. There have been reports of police turning up at dumpsters with Lojack transmitters still functioning on their batteries. When your car gets stolen, what normally happens is the thief will move it a few miles further down the road then abandon it until some time when it is more "safe" to do so. (Most are not dim enough to drive it around for very long). The window of time between dumping and retrieval is (supposedly) when the GPS recovery systems are worth the money. >>In the US, you're still more likely to be killed by a family member than a >>terrorist. This is probably also true of our troops in Afghanistan......so its not a particularly useful statistic or insight is it? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,020 by Ashton 3/21/02 2:24:58 PM Reply	The pluses are evident. Now, what about the negatives? Note that every "new" thing ever conceived in hopes of a payoff, marketed in hopes of creating a new need: is perfectly portrayed only in terms of the pluses. "Scale and relativity" means: a discussion of the pluses AND minuses, over the short term (in Murica: the 90 day 'quarter' on whose performance we base EVERY bizness decision) ..AND long term. I believe Brandioch was merely placing this particular gadget into a semblance of long term implications. Would you like to consider these - or not? Take guns: almost anyone is capable of imagining.. a situation in which possession of one of these might ... ... SYA. Others imagine the other cases too; where such possession leads to a tragedy, family- stupid reaction- or countless Other occasions for error. So yes - we Can imagine a possible need for a gun. But we can also imagine the effects if, for believing the FIRST imagination exclusively: Why, we could create a society so violent in its imagery, so Me-Me-Me obsessed with say, ownership of unlimited amounts of goods and, so devoid of trust in one's fellows that - anyone NOT-armed would find selves in daily peril! (Couldn't happen Here, of course...) Like the gun - one can imagine the effects of the Authoritarians as are ever amongst us, upon first the optional and then ... ... mandatory deployment.. er, for our Comfort & Convenience\ufffd, natch. Like the Millennium Patriot Babble-'laws' rescinding of the Constitution. Is that a sufficient example of the sometimes even short-term processes of - dwelling on only One-side of an idea? Ashton Every two-edged sword has ummm Two Edges \ufffd 2002 by Obviousman
Post #33,038 by Mike 3/21/02 4:36:42 PM Reply	Odd Brandioch: >>It's always easy to trade your freedom and privacy for a SENSE of security. >>But are you REALLY any safer than you were? Effectively? I'm answering......."yes I think you can make a case that you are safer because of it". I explained why. "Oh but its all very well to consider just one side of the debate....." is an unmeasured response. Particularly, if you want to give Brandioch the lattitude of just about the most forgiving interpretation possible. >>I believe Brandioch was merely placing this particular gadget into a >>semblance of long term implications. Would you like to consider these - >>or not? What an excellent idea. Shall we drop the whole thing about whether its just a SENSE of security and whether one is truly safer then? Let's look at both the pros AND the cons. Okay.....I said it was "definitely open to abuse". I think I'm gonna stick with that for now and see how it goes. I guess I'm just not all that enamoured with the "big brother" presumptions which people immediately jump to. And it is soooooooo facile to jump on the big brother bandwagon. If certain posts here are to be believed....we need to lighten the hell up and stop worrying about these fictitious terrorists who (supposedly) want to kill people........and besides its HIGHLY unlikely that they will get you. So just fergettabardit. HOWEVER........big bro tracking the precise location of Americans while they tend to their largely vacuous, dull, uninteresting, trite, meaningless, banal activities all leading up to the next shopping erection on Saturday.......NOW THAT'S VERY LIKELY.....and something to get concerned about. Because......well.....errrrrrm.....well its not private is it? And we all know that "privacy" is very important because our mothers would want some when they went to the shitter. "Privacy" means that we can rent naughty videos and masturbate in peace......and "privacy" means we are free to do those things which are crucial to the defense of our freedoms and just about everything we stand for....... like Oprah and Howard Stern and kicking other people in the nuts in video games. In fact, privacy is the cornerstone of our society. This is why the police are never allowed to search my house, ask where I was on Halloween, or search my world-reknowned collection of bat piss which I keep in mason jars under stairs. This is why people are not allowed to write invasive and derogatory paperbacks about famous people. This is why photographers are not allowed to pursue Hollywood superstars. This is why the president could never be asked to show his tattooed pecker, or Monica to show her tattooed ass - after all its private isn't it? (Okay I made up the bit about Monica....but it makes me horney to think about it). This is why you are allowed to refuse a search at the airport if you don't particularly care for it. This is why you don't really have to tell the IRS what you earned last year. This is why you are allowed to take whatever drugs you want to. This is why CC television is not allowed to record our movements at the tollbooths, ATMs, major intersections. We have privacy dammit.....and GPS could wreck all that. All technology (and other stuff besides) can be used for both good and bad. This is an excellent point you make. It reminds me that my grandparents were petrified at the idea of having a toilet INSIDE the house. They thought it was unhygenic and disgusting to make a smell "indoors". They actually preferred to have an outhouse at the end of the yard. Not sure exactly how this ties in yet.......but I wanted to tell the story anyway. Ah yes.....I remember....when we are done with GPS, I would like to discuss the potential impacts of indoor toilets on privacy and whether Big Brother really was watching us when we ......ya know......did poopies. -Mike Hmmmmmm....two references to my elders taking a crap in the same post. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,045 by Ashton 3/21/02 4:57:38 PM Reply	Cackle.. OK OK !!___________________Cackle.. Yeah, maybe just another nail in a coffin already nailed, stapled, glued & screwed. (But there's a phone inside, in case you were still alive when the lid went on.) Maybe it comes down to another piece of doggerel - the only thing technology can't control is technology. Since we won't / can't vet gizmos in advance of their multiplying like Tribbles, after the originator has left for his island in the Carib.. {sigh} we might as well relax and enjoy the play. (But somewhere down the line, we're gonna have to figure out WTF we think we mean by 'security' - since the most secure place of all IS inside that padded coffin with only the fone-line... Itself a risk: should you use it to listen to someone's AM radio all day) Chicken Little et al.
Post #33,073 by wharris2 3/21/02 7:23:46 PM Reply	Terrorists wrong argument The problem I have with universal involuntary GPS is the possibilities of hacking or human engineering into whatever is being tracked. (And I'm sure it'll be hacked at some point or another.) Suppose some MacTribesman gets pissed off at me because I make a disparaging remark like "Oh, those Mac people, they're too GUI and too stupid to know enough to hack a GPS"? If, wonder of wonders, they actually do hack into a GPS network, or (more likely) they bribe someone to get my GPS info, they can then stalk me, find me, trash my house, break my legs, whatever. Or, say I get married but later get into a bitter, bitter, divorce? My wife uses this GPS-hack - or even just plain general human veniality to have someone at the GPS tracking headquarters tell her - to learn when I'm heading over for visitation with my (hypothetical) kids and vanishes before I get there? No, I don't like forced new features. I want to know what I'm being given, what privacy options there are, and what I can turn on or off, and GPS is one of those I want to be able to be in full control of. I agree that potential terrorists have no interest in me except as a statistic when the blow something up. It's the other privacy threats that I'm bothered by. "I didn't know you could drive to Europe." -- An eavesdropper, piping in when he overheard a conversation about someone who had driven to Montreal.
Post #33,204 by Mike 3/22/02 8:02:30 PM Reply	Actually... ...that's a good point you make about pissed off people possibly being able to track you down and then ...... <insert appropriate nightmare scenario here>. I honestly hadn't considered that before now. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,025 by Brandioch 3/21/02 3:25:07 PM Reply	Percentages? I'm going to stick to the illusion of security. Yes, some people do have trouble when calling 911. On a cell phone. And that's the key. No one can argue that NO ONE could use this tracking. So, for those that could use it, we will track EVERYONE. The window of time between dumping and retrieval is (supposedly) when the GPS recovery systems are worth the money. Again, the illusion of security. I'd accept a system tied to my car alarm. But then, I already have a car alarm. So the joy riders won't take my car. I'd also accept a system that could be turned on when I wanted it on. Like a bright red emergency button if I happen to need it. But one that is on by default is beyond the realm of "protecting" my property. The same with the cell phones. Put a button on them that activates a GPS sub-system. The emergency crews can find me when I want them to find me and not any other time. This is probably also true of our troops in Afghanistan......so its not a particularly useful statistic or insight is it? Actually, it is. Just as you've illustrated. The average person is in no danger whatsoever (statistically) from terrorists. Yet we're moving closer and closer to Big Brother and the rational is given as "protecting" us. It is possible to protect yourself and your property without being tracked and without losing your freedoms. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Post #33,039 by Mike 3/21/02 4:43:15 PM Reply	Huh? This is probably also true of our troops in Afghanistan......so its not a particularly useful statistic or insight is it? >>Actually, it is. Just as you've illustrated. The average person is in no >>danger whatsoever (statistically) from terrorists. And..........the average coalition soldier in Afghanistan......is (statistically) in no danger from terrorists. We are (statistically) under a similar threat it would seem. So we should all be behaving in the same way....whistling through the graveyard.......right? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,065 by Brandioch 3/21/02 6:31:13 PM Reply	Where's the graveyard? So we should all be behaving in the same way....whistling through the graveyard.......right? I don't see your reference. Or, rather, I do, but your phrasing tends to support my position. Whistling past the graveyard refers to activities to keep baseless fears at bay. I say, why worry about the graveyard? The ghosts and ghoulies are, statistically speaking, NOT going to get you. It is FAR more likely that the person you're walking with will kill you than any ectoplasmic fiend. Yet we're willing to invest our time and money in amulets and talismans and hirelings to walk and whistle with us. Yes, you are "safer" with those. No, you are not "safer" with those. There is an element of chance in life. You cannot remove that. No matter how hard you try. There is no 100% guarantee of safety. No matter how much you spend or how many rights you surrender. Was the average citizen in the USSR any safer than the average US citizen? Than the average Finish citizen? Which is when/where we get into the question of whether the government will ever care where I go or what I do. Yes, they will. The same government that kept a file on Martin Luther King will care where I go. Or, rather, they will care what vehicles are parked in proximity to certain locations. What cell phones are carried in certain buildings. As long as you never question the government or meet with those who do, you'll have nothing to worry about. Isn't that one of the threads of 1984?
Post #33,213 by Mike 3/22/02 10:00:16 PM Reply	Nice try >>Whistling past the graveyard refers to activities to keep >>baseless fears at bay. Not so. It is almost universally used to imply bluff and/or denial in the face of real and tangible threats. Here are three uses of it in context. [link\|http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/5/171033.shtml\|http://www.newsmax....171033.shtml] Although some may regard that kind of comment as a form of "whistling past the graveyard,\ufffd rare is the Republican on the Hill ready to go to war over this nomination, at least at this early stage. [link\|http://www.brianwilson.net/pages/crusher.html\|http://www.brianwil...crusher.html] "The Polyannas who think things are fine because the Dow is at 10,000, or that the corrupt secular culture can be recaptured and the society seduced by it weaned from its miasmatic effects are, quite simply, delusional fools whistling past the graveyard of history." [link\|http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jd92601.htm\|http://cyberboxingz.../jd92601.htm] "Trinidad has everything, including the intangibles, in his favor. Most point to Hopkins's articulate monologues as evidence of supreme confidence, yet for me there is a bit of "whistling in the graveyard" in his harangues. Trinidad's accuracy will be the difference. Trinidad by kayo in the 8th." But.......setting aside a (perhaps) poor choice of metaphor on my part..... I hold that it does us bugger-all good to start trying to view this through the prism of statistics. Reasons? 1) There is no established/calibrated measure of when we SHOULD start to become concerned if we are going to let statistics and probabilities guide us. I grant you that 3,000 people dying means that we have a very low probability of being victims. But its still true if you raise the numbers of dead to 30,000. Some would say that you still have pretty good odds if the number is 100,000. Are you really saying that 30,000 dead should not be allowed to make us feel threatened? 2) The concern is not based purely on the numbers of known dead. It is also based on the fact that they (the baddies) would inflict many more orders of magnitude of death and destruction if they were permitted to. Those spouting their venomous words used to viewed as fruitcakes who were not to be taken all that seriously. Well.......it hard not to take then seriously anymore. The degree to which the concern needs to be raised is not well understood (significantly..... amongst those who are supposed to be looking out for us). 3) Who said that we have to be personally threatened in order to be concerned? You don't have to be black to be concerned about racism. You don't have to have a relative with cystic fibrosis before you donate to cf-related charities. 4) Perhaps more importantly.....we habitually disregard statistics when making day-to-day decisions......and often we do so wisely. Its highly unliklely we will be robbed but we still lock our doors. Its quite unlikely that we will need to have an airbag deployed.....but we will take them just the same. Its statistically unlikely that you will need a smoke detector....but who refuses them? Bottom line......stats can be used to justify behavior which at the end of the day is probably not all that bright from a Darwinistic point of view. If you are one of those unfortunate ones who fall on the wrong side of probability.......all of a sudden it starts to look pretty smart to have "bought the insurance" so to speak. For some, the price of this insurance is a trade off they are prepared to make......a loss of something here...a gain of something there. (I've got the sense that I have slipped into state-the-bleedin' obvious mode, but I'm too tired to go back and re-read what I wrote). Finally, to dismiss the sense of security as purely "perception" without any real substance is a sword which can also be used to strike at your "perceptions" that the government cares to watch your every move. In all likelihood......its really is not very likely. But if you are entitled to feel concerned about the prospect of being watched.....I put it to you that the prospect of being killed should not be given any lesser weighting. You can point to the file on Martin Luther King to support your concern. I can point to 3,000 innocent lives who would give almost anything to be able to be watched again. -Mike P.S. Even though I disagree with you, I do enjoy reading your opinions. a perception does have some legitimacy make claims about people's that the -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,217 by Brandioch 3/22/02 10:39:55 PM Reply	Why are you doing that? I grant you that 3,000 people dying means that we have a very low probability of being victims. But its still true if you raise the numbers of dead to 30,000. But 30,000 people did not die. 3,000 did. Are you really saying that 30,000 dead should not be allowed to make us feel threatened? I'm saying that the number killed was about 3,000. I'm saying that more people than that are killed EVERY YEAR in this country BY CARS. I'm saying you have a far GREATER chance of being killed by a family member than you have of being killed by a terrorist. Now, I'm also saying that, because of those statistics, we do NOT need to take more stringent measures to protect ourselves from terrorists than to protect ourselves from our families and from our cars. The concern is not based purely on the numbers of known dead. It is also based on the fact that they (the baddies) would inflict many more orders of magnitude of death and destruction if they were permitted to. And I am not going to deal in wishes of the bad guys. Yes, IF THEY COULD, they would. Are we going to pass laws to "protect" us from what all the bad people WOULD do if they COULD? Those spouting their venomous words used to viewed as fruitcakes who were not to be taken all that seriously. Well.......it hard not to take then seriously anymore. Osama's been a known threat for YEARS. He's tried to bomb other buildings in this country. Who said that we have to be personally threatened in order to be concerned? No one. But we were hosting the Taliban in Texan in 1997 and we didn't seem too concerned about them then. You don't have to be black to be concerned about racism. Hmmm, Osama's goal is to get the US out of the Holy Lands. That would would seem to indicate us. Well, I know I'm a US citizen. Its highly unliklely we will be robbed but we still lock our doors. Yep. But robbery is far more likely than being killed in a terrorist attack. I have an alarm in my car because someone tried to steal it one time. I have three friends who have had their cars stolen. I know one woman who's had her apartment broken into. I'm sure there are others that I don't know about. Crime stats are easily available. Again, being robbed is FAR more likely than being killed by a terrorist. Its quite unlikely that we will need to have an airbag deployed.....but we will take them just the same. Optional now as it was discovered that the air bag can kill you when deployed. Its statistically unlikely that you will need a smoke detector....but who refuses them? The fire department can tell you approximately how many house fires will happen within their area every year. Not who's house will catch fire, but how many fires there will be. Within 10% usually. Now, can you tell me how many terrorists killings will happen in any area next year? Plus or minus 10%? 50%? 100%? Can you tell to the nearest 1000? No. You can't. Well, you'd be right for most towns (99.9999999%) if you said ZERO. So, figure 10 house fires a year in your town, for which you have smoke detectors vs. ZERO terrorists killings (for which you want to give up your privacy and your rights). Logical? Bottom line......stats can be used to justify behavior which at the end of the day is probably not all that bright from a Darwinistic point of view. Ummmmm, I'll disagree. I also think you're not using "Darwinistic" correctly in that phrase. It would be more correct to phrase it as "random selection". And you cannot protect yourself against random selection. If you are one of those unfortunate ones who fall on the wrong side of probability.......all of a sudden it starts to look pretty smart to have "bought the insurance" so to speak. That's a human failing. You cannot insure against EVERYTHING. Nor do you attempt to. Check your policy. Random chance is simply that. Random chance. Finally, to dismiss the sense of security as purely "perception" without any real substance is a sword which can also be used to strike at your "perceptions" that the government cares to watch your every move. Check up on the history of our government. Check up on McCarthy. On Hoover. On Nixon. Our government has an established history of watching innocent people. I'm against giving it any more tools to do that with. In all likelihood......its really is not very likely. [link\|http://foia.fbi.gov/famous.htm\|http://foia.fbi.gov/famous.htm] You can point to the file on Martin Luther King to support your concern. And I will. I can point to 3,000 innocent lives who would give almost anything to be able to be watched again. Hmmmm, so two wrongs make it right? You see, the flaw in your position is that we are currently at "war" to "get" the people who aided in the death of those 3,000. To "help" in that effort, you're proposing that we surrender even more rights to the government that has already abused its authority? So, bad people killing good people -justifies- bad people taking rights from good people? I don't see the logic in that.
Post #33,221 by Mike 3/23/02 12:19:21 AM Reply	You're missing my point. Intentionally I think. 1) You can prove that the government DOES watch people. No shit. 2) I can prove that 3,000 people did die. No shit. 3) You point out that it is statistically unlikely that you will be a victim of terrorism and therefore people ought not to be so concerned. 4) You won't have the same argument applied to victims of government monitoring. I restate my point again......It is statistically very unlikely that you will be watched by the government. You can take this to the bank for any year and for any era you care to choose. My position is this: It doesn't make sense to try to fuel concern about one and be dealing out platitudes about the other. >>You see, the flaw in your position is that we are currently at "war" to "get" >>the people who aided in the death of those 3,000. Oh really.....and what position would that be exactly? I'm sure I have not delineated anything like a position. What I HAVE said is: I hold that it does us bugger-all good to start trying to view this through the prism of statistics. >>Hmmmm, so two wrongs make it right? What a truly illogical thing to even try to introduce. >>Now, can you tell me how many terrorists killings will happen in any area >>next year? Plus or minus 10%? 50%? 100%? Can you tell to the nearest 1000? >>No. You can't. Well, you'd be right for most towns (99.9999999%) if you said >>ZERO. Ahhhhhhhhh yup. And it was exactly this mentality which led us to have the crappy system masquerading for airline security. We are 99.9999999% terrorist free. Fat lot of good that does you. I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb in saying that I honestly think it is going to happen again. And if/when it does.....the costs in terms of loss of life and personal suffering not just on the victims but also their families and friends will make the pain and suffering which people experienced as a result of being monitored by the FBI seem like a footnote. Final thought......the statistic game about almost all US towns being free of threat is true but absurd. >>Well, you'd be right for most towns (99.9999999%) if you said ZERO. Tell me.......which of the following places are 99.9999999% certain to have ZERO terrorist-related deaths during the next 10 years: U.S. Cities with Populations of 500,000 or More in 1998, Ranked by 1998 Population Rank City 1998 Population 1 New York, N.Y. 7,420,166 2 Los Angeles, Calif. 3,597,556 3 Chicago, Ill. 2,802,079 4 Houston, Texas 1,786,691 5 Philadelphia, Pa. 1,436,287 6 San Diego, Calif. 1,220,666 7 Phoenix, Ariz. 1,198,064 8 San Antonio, Texas 1,114,130 9 Dallas, Texas 1,075,894 10 Detroit, Mich. 970,196 11 San Jose, Calif. 861,284 12 San Francisco, Calif. 745,774 13 Indianapolis, Ind. 741,304 14 Jacksonville, Fla. 693,630 15 Columbus, Ohio 670,234 16 Baltimore, Md. 645,593 17 El Paso, Texas 615,032 18 Memphis, Tenn. 603,507 19 Milwaukee, Wis. 578,364 20 Boston, Mass. 555,447 21 Austin, Texas 552,435 22 Seattle, Wash. 536,978 23 Washington, D.C. 523,124 24 Nashville-Davidson, Tenn.510,274 25 Charlotte, N.C. 504,637 26 Portland, Ore. 503,891 Don't even think to start guessing. You don't know..... and don't pretend you do. Did I already point out that being watched is not so bad as dying? How many people have to be watched before they equal one death? Quickly now. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,238 by Brandioch 3/23/02 1:08:11 PM Reply	Nope. Just showing you my point. 1) You can prove that the government DOES watch people. No shit. Yep. Without reason in many cases. 2) I can prove that 3,000 people did die. No shit. And no one is arguing that. 3) You point out that it is statistically unlikely that you will be a victim of terrorism and therefore people ought not to be so concerned. Your examples of crime and fire are easily shown to be NON-ZERO for most towns. The chance of a terrorist attack is shown to be ZERO for most towns. Now, combine #1 & #3 and you'll see that it is more likely that the government will have a file on you (unwarranted) than you will be killed by a terrorist. 4) You won't have the same argument applied to victims of government monitoring. Ummm, I don't see what you're trying to say. I restate my point again......It is statistically very unlikely that you will be watched by the government. You can take this to the bank for any year and for any era you care to choose. It is, statistically, MORE likely that you will be watched by the government than you will be killed by a terrorist. My position is this: It doesn't make sense to try to fuel concern about one and be dealing out platitudes about the other. No, your example was 3,000 killed that would rather be alive and watched. You've tied "killed" to "watched". That isn't the case. The choices are NOT: #1. Be watched by the government. -or- #2. Be killed by a terrorist. Nor will increased governmental surveillance decrease the likelyhood that you'll be killed by a terrorist. Since the statistical probability that you'll be killed by a terrorist is, most likely, ZERO for your municipality. I'm sure I have not delineated anything like a position. You've said that the 3,000 dead would rather be alive and watched. I hold that it does us bugger-all good to start trying to view this through the prism of statistics. And I've shown why statistics are a good indicator of what your risks are. Ahhhhhhhhh yup. And it was exactly this mentality which led us to have the crappy system masquerading for airline security. We are 99.9999999% terrorist free. Fat lot of good that does you. That is why I said it wasn't "Darwinistic" as you phrased it but more "random chance". You cannot take the random factor our of your life. So matter how hard you try to. The security measures we have in place NOW would NOT stop the terrorists. Even 6 months after the attack. I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb in saying that I honestly think it is going to happen again. Describe how it will happen and then describe what actions can be taken to prevent it. Otherwise, you're willing to give up your rights for a perceived sense of security. And if/when it does.....the costs in terms of loss of life and personal suffering not just on the victims but also their families and friends will make the pain and suffering which people experienced as a result of being monitored by the FBI seem like a footnote. Again, you're tying "killed" with "surveillance". If you have "surveillance", you won't be "killed" is the implied message of your post. So, describe how the attack will occure and how it will be prevented by "surveillance". Final thought......the statistic game about almost all US towns being free of threat is true but absurd. Really? Then I will assume that people living in Phoenix purchase earthquake insurance the same as people living in L.A.? Tell me.......which of the following places are 99.9999999% certain to have ZERO terrorist-related deaths during the next 10 years: 10 years? I can't say. 1 year? That's easy. None of them will have any terrorist attacks within the next 12 months. Which is why I keep saying it is random chance. EVENTUALLY, a terrorist attack WILL occure. But being under surveillance will NOT prevent that attack. So, you're proposing something that will NOT stop the attack, but WILL impact the lives of our citizens. And the reason you're doing this is so they will feel safer. Not that they will BE safer. Did I already point out that being watched is not so bad as dying? Yes, you did. And I've also pointedout that the choices are not "death" or "surveillance". Nor would increasing "surveillance" reduce the odds of your "death". It is the perception of security. Read 1984.
Post #33,252 by Mike 3/23/02 4:59:10 PM Reply	Re: Nope. Just showing you my point. I'm sure I have not delineated anything like a position. >>You've said that the 3,000 dead would rather be alive and watched. Dude, that's just a freakin' given....you don't want to debate this do you? Its not a position, its a 24 carat fact. >>That is why I said it wasn't "Darwinistic" as you phrased it but more "random >>chance". You cannot take the random factor our of your life. So matter how >>hard you try to. You can prepare for and mitigate threats. This is also just a given. How you are able to respond in the face of threats to your existence is a quintessentially Darwinistic question. But I don't really want Darwin to cloud the more visceral issues here. >>Nor will increased governmental surveillance decrease the likelyhood that >>you'll be killed by a terrorist. Since the statistical probability that >>you'll be killed by a terrorist is, most likely, ZERO for your municipality. Well, first of all......its not zero.......its just very small. For it to be ZERO it has to be impossible. I think you know this and are just conveniently overlooking it. And it is a very small likelihood that the government will be watching you. >>10 years? I can't say. 1 year? That's easy. None of them will have any >>terrorist attacks within the next 12 months. Tell me why is there even a hint of justification to focus on the next 12 months? The terrorists waited since 1993 to attack again. I didn't ask for 1 year, I asked for 10. Hey nice guess guy. I hope you are right. But you don't know do you? You don't know when, you don't know where, you don't know how, you don't know how many times, you don't know how many casualties, you don't know how much destruction, you don't know how much suffering. The reason your position is silly is that.......if its allowed to hold water we should actually be reducing the amount of government monitoring. After all the likelihood is EXTREMELY small so why worry right? This (if believed) means that we start shaving away at government powers and keep going for as long as the risk is extremely small right? Problem is...nobody (not even you) has any idea what "extremely small" really means. Lets set it at n major attacks every n years? (Insert your own numbers). You are talking about extremely small AFTER 9/11....so ........if it happened again we would presumably still be in the realm of the extremely small. What about, a few more times? How about an attack in EACH of the cities I listed which cauase 3,00 to be killed? Wouldn't it still be statistically very unlikely that you would be the victim of an attack? So.........there would still be no justification for increased goverment monitoring? >>Nor will increased governmental surveillance decrease the likelyhood that >>you'll be killed by a terrorist. I thought we had dealt with the question of whether "you" will be attacked is not relevant. Its whether anyone will be attacked. The question needs to be whether anyone will be attacked.... And finally, yes surveillance does have its successes. [link\|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/etc/synopsis.html\|http://www.pbs.org/...ynopsis.html] Didn't the detention of Zacharias Moussauwi (supposedly) make them accelerate their plans? Didn't he arouse suspicions because he only wanted to learn how to fly not land or take off? Ordinarily this is not a crime....but he was stopped. A few more successes like that one and the entire thing might have been prevented. I think it is self-evident and unnecessary of proof that more surveillance could have prevented 9/11. Saying that it won't reduce your chances because they were already extremely low...........is academically disengenuous (ie. wrong because your chances were NOT zero). >>Read 1984. Did you finish "History And Forgetting" - James Bacque yet? What did you think of it? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,265 by Brandioch 3/23/02 8:26:11 PM Reply	Which shows your assumptions. I'm sure I have not delineated anything like a position. >>You've said that the 3,000 dead would rather be alive and watched. Dude, that's just a freakin' given....you don't want to debate this do you? Its not a position, its a 24 carat fact. I'm sure they would. The question is, is that the choice there was? If we have more surveillance, will the terrorists still be able to get through? Well, first of all......its not zero.......its just very small. For it to be ZERO it has to be impossible. I think you know this and are just conveniently overlooking it. And it is a very small likelihood that the government will be watching you. Well, we're getting somewhere, "just very small" is a good start. So, why are you advocating anyone (non-terrorist) give up any rights to "protect" you from something who's likelyhood of occuring is "just very small"? There is also a very small chance you'll win the lottery. Tell me why is there even a hint of justification to focus on the next 12 months? Simple, given enough time, even a statistically "impossible" event can occure. So, you're willing to start restricting rights based off of the knowledge that unlikely events will eventually occure? Did I mention the Lottery yet? Do you think it would make a good retirement fund for you? The reason your position is silly is that.......if its allowed to hold water we should actually be reducing the amount of government monitoring. ? How so? After all the likelihood is EXTREMELY small so why worry right? That is correct. There is no need for any decrease in individual rights to handle this situation. After all, our past security measures have been sufficient to handle just about everything up to now. How many other foreign terrorists have hit us within our borders? This (if believed) means that we start shaving away at government powers and keep going for as long as the risk is extremely small right? This is called a "straw man". You are assigning a position to me that I have not stated and are preparing to attack that instead of my stated position. Problem is...nobody (not even you) has any idea what "extremely small" really means........ This is your fear talking. You're expounding upon attacks that haven't occured. Rather than guessing how many will occure (if we do not take measures that may not stop them anyway), how about we look at the past and see what DID occure? I thought we had dealt with the question of whether "you" will be attacked is not relevant. Its whether anyone will be attacked. The question needs to be whether anyone will be attacked.... Okay, the net is still the same. The average person will not be killed by a terrorist. Statistically speaking. That is derived from a study of past statistics on death. And finally, yes surveillance does have its successes. Yep. Note the date on that incident. 1999. So, terrorists were being caught with the existing level of surveillance. Can you tell me that increasing the surveillance will catch more? I say it will not. Just as our "increased" security at airports will stop anyone getting anything through. I think it is self-evident and unnecessary of proof that more surveillance could have prevented 9/11. Hmmm, weren't visas for the terrorists issued AFTER the attack? When their names were definately known? I don't think it could have prevented the attack. They used legally carried weapons. Tell me >HOW< surveillance could have stopped them. Saying that it won't reduce your chances because they were already extremely low...........is academically disengenuous (ie. wrong because your chances were NOT zero). That is the difference between academics and the real world. In academics, you can say that an extremely unlikely event can be even more extremely unlikely. In the real world, you have to factor in human failings and random events. Looking BACK, it is easy to see that someone only wanting to learn to fly and not land could be a threat. At the time, they didn't care. And that's the key. The next attack WILL NOT BE from an airplane. It will come from another, unexpected direction. And no amount of surveillance will prevent it. Just as no amount of surveillance would have prevented them attacking the WTC. Did you finish "History And Forgetting" - James Bacque yet? What did you think of it? Dull. What does that have to do with this discussion?
Post #33,281 by Mike 3/24/02 10:00:20 AM Reply	You are getting confused >>That is the difference between academics and the real world. In academics, >>you can say that an extremely unlikely event can be even more extremely >>unlikely. In the real world, you have to factor in human failings and random >>events. Looking BACK, it is easy to see that someone only wanting to learn to >>fly and not land could be a threat. At the time, they didn't care. You are getting confused. On August 13th, a flight school in Eagan, Minnesota, informed the FBI that a student named Zacarias Moussaoui had asked to take 747 flight simulator training, but that he only wanted to learn how to steer the aircraft \ufffd not take off or land. Moussaoui, who was in this country illegally, was arrested and held for deportation. [link\|http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/11-05-2001/vo17no23_prevented.htm\|http://www.thenewam...revented.htm] -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,296 by Brandioch 3/24/02 5:11:52 PM Reply	Allow me to clarify. I said: Looking BACK, it is easy to see that someone only wanting to learn to fly and not land could be a threat. At the time, they didn't care. You said: You are getting confused. On August 13th, a flight school in Eagan, Minnesota, informed the FBI that a student named Zacarias Moussaoui had asked to take 747 flight simulator training, but that he only wanted to learn how to steer the aircraft \ufffd not take off or land. Moussaoui, who was in this country illegally, was arrested and held for deportation. So, why weren't the OTHERS who were taking such training identified to the FBI? Why weren't they captured? And why the fuck are we deporting a terrorist? This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. SOME will ALWAYS slip through. One was caught, but enough got through to fly two planes into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and one that crashed. So, the next attack takes longer to plan. The next attack requires that they become certified pilots. More effort on their part. A longer ramp up time. Similar effects. And that's just focusing on flying planes into buildings.
Post #33,299 by Mike 3/24/02 6:05:06 PM Reply	Please do clarify. So far you haven't. Please put special [] marks around the things from my post which you have clarified. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,352 by Brandioch 3/25/02 10:32:23 AM Reply	Again. Wanting to learn to fly without learning to take off or land is weird. But not illegal. Nor was it illegal to carry box cutters on planes. So, I will fill it in for you. We have armed guards scanning everyone's baggage. The terrorists go through the scan with their legally carried box cutters. The attack proceeds as it did. So, the easy way around that is to outlaw box cutters and any type of knife. So, they need another weapon, piano wire garrots maybe? Still legal to transport those (and they're easily hidden). The ONLY way to make sure no one gets a weapon on board is for EVERYONE to fly nude. No clothes. No luggage. Nothing. And even THAT doesn't preclude advanced training in martial arts. So, ONE person sees something reportable in someone wanting to only learn to steer an aircraft. Others do not (or they accept the reasons given by the terrorists). Now, if that guy had been in the country legally, would he still have been allowed to learn to steer the aircraft? So, everyone flies nude with no carry-on luggage. So, if you want to learn to steer the aircraft, you'll need to sign up for the whole course AND be in the country legally. So, one of their people is in the country legally and learns to fly and then they get a Leer and pack it full of explosives and fly it into another building.
Post #33,378 by Mike 3/25/02 1:25:47 PM Reply	Again? Really? I don't think so......... .......I see a lot of new stuff here. (I note that you avoided placing [ marks around the parts of anything mine or yours....which were clarified) Let's talk about whether it practically possible to make a plane safer (or 100% safe) in a separate thread shall we? (You probably don't want to go there though. Hint: If you fly El-Al you ARE safer. This is undisputed. Their safety record is remarkable given the nature of threat against them. But then......they take measures which are remarkable when compared to other airlines........don't they?). Back to the topic on hand........ THEY....CAUGHT.....ONE......OF......THE.....TERRORISTS It wasn't with hindsight. It wasn't just because of his visa that he was held. They found his activities troubling. They were going to deport him to France and let him lead them to others and/or more info. Perhaps by monitoring him more carefully? Oh no, wait I am forgetting......monitoring him more carefully would not have achieved anything. You "proved" that. Right? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,393 by Brandioch 3/25/02 2:44:02 PM Reply	Again, again. Back to the topic on hand........ THEY....CAUGHT.....ONE......OF......THE.....TERRORISTS It wasn't with hindsight. It wasn't just because of his visa that he was held. They found his activities troubling. They were going to deport him to France and let him lead them to others and/or more info. Perhaps by monitoring him more carefully? Oh no, wait I am forgetting......monitoring him more carefully would not have achieved anything. You "proved" that. Right? Again, one was caught and how many got through? What would you have been monitoring that would have alerted you to the others? Specifics. Are you suggesting we monitor all the flight schools? Why would be have done this before the attack? Are you suggesting that we should have spotted them because they were carrying box cutters? Why would anyone be suspicious of box cutters before the attack. Increased monitoring would NOT have prevented the attack because >YOU< have not yet told me >WHAT< would be monitored. Yet I have given you examples of what is now monitored because of the attack and how such monitoring can be circumvented. If you advocate "monitoring", you have to "monitor" something. In surveillance, what are you watching? I can give concrete examples of what I do NOT want the government doing (GPS in my cell phone). You have yet to give a concrete example of what monitoring what specific location, activity, whatever would have prevented the attack. Or how such monitoring can prevent another attack. And >THAT< is why I keep saying your "reasoning" is pure emotion. You have a warm fuzzy feeling that "monitoring" will "protect" you. That you can "monitor" the bad guys. Which is why I keep saying that your security is an illusion. Any system can be circumvented. I illustrated that in the examples I gave you. Even when everyone is required to fly nude with no carry on luggage, it is still possible for a terrorist to kill the crew and take over the plane. So, that means you'll have to monitor every dojo in the world for anyone of arab descent, possibly linked to Osama, taking martial arts training. And that is just ONE example of what you'd have to do. Nevermind that the prerequisites for such extreme action on the terrorist's part will not come about (we will not be required to fly nude). Which means that they will can still use any weapon that is not being searched for right now. Which means that they can still use different avenues of attack.
Post #33,402 by Mike 3/25/02 3:46:01 PM 3/25/02 6:24:25 PM Reply	Are they going to get harder than this? >>Again, one was caught and how many got through? >>What would you have been monitoring that would have alerted you to the others? >>Specifics. Ummmm let me see.......all the things that are a concern for you.......must be a concern for them .......... right? Or would you have us believe that they would disappear into a mass of meaningless data, making it unlikely that the government would notice them? (Nope ya can't have that one!). -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike March 25, 2002, 06:24:25 PM EST Expand All History
Post #33,487 by Brandioch 3/26/02 12:44:59 PM Reply	Me personally? Ummmm let me see.......all the things that are a concern for you.......must be a concern for them .......... right? Me personally? Nope. That is why one illegal was caught doing something odd but other ones got through. Which is why, someone wanting to learn to steer an aircraft but not land or take off would be IMMEDIATELY reported now (after the attack), but only one was reported BEFORE the attack. The same with people carrying box cutters onto airplanes. No reason to not let them through BEFORE the attack. But now they're a big problem. Which is where "monitoring" breaks down. It relies on people to do it. People can follow a list of items, but that list is limited to things that people can think of. They can't get them all. Or, people can look for "odd" activitiy. But this also gets back to people defining what is "odd". What is unusual to one person is normal to another. "Monitoring" would NOT have prevented the attack.
Post #33,512 by Mike 3/26/02 3:37:05 PM Reply	More monitoring could have CLEARLY prevented the attack. Just because it >didn't< you think you have proof that it >couldn't<? That's a pretty dumb assertion. Once they spotted a potential terrorist in flight school. TADA.....more heavy monitoring of all the flight schools. Not sure why it didn't happen........but to say that it could not have possibly made a difference.......is not credible. And now.........your waffling on about the human factor. Oh god........ "Which is where "monitoring" breaks down." NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT MONITORING IS FOOLPROOF. YOU ARE ARGUING THAT MONITORING CAN NOT RESULT IN A GAIN IN SECURITY. Dude, get with the program. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,521 by Brandioch 3/26/02 4:31:23 PM Reply	And that proves my point. Once they spotted a potential terrorist in flight school. TADA.....more heavy monitoring of all the flight schools. Which proves my point. You're operating in hindsight. You see a "terrorist" in a flight school. You increase monitoring in all the flight schools. You see a "terrorist" in the supermarket. You increase monitoring in all the supermarkets. You see a "terrorist" in the hardware store. You increase monitoring in all the hardware stores. Not sure why it didn't happen........but to say that it could not have possibly made a difference.......is not credible. Why it didn't happen is just what I've said. You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING. It is only AFTER an attack has taken place that you can understand that they took the flight training so they could pilot the planes AFTER they had killed the pilots with box cutters and then fly them into buildings. The individual items are MEANINGLESS prior to the attack. And now.........your waffling on about the human factor. Oh god........ "Which is where "monitoring" breaks down." Whatever you want to believe. You still don't realize that you're operating in hindsight. People who are much better versed than you in this (the FBI) were notified about that one guy in one flight school. They took NO action. And the reason is that they are human and didn't see the connection between flight training and suicide attacks. They didn't see that connection. People who are trained to deal with these things DID NOT SEE THAT CONNECTION. Someone wanting to learn to steer a plane without landing/take off was odd, but NOT A THREAT. Well, it wasn't perceived as a threat TO THE TRAINED PROFESSIONALS. Or, at least not an ORGANIZED threat. NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT MONITORING IS FOOLPROOF. YOU ARE ARGUING THAT MONITORING CAN NOT RESULT IN A GAIN IN SECURITY. No. I am pointing out that "monitoring" in these instances will not result in a gain in security. And for the example to show my point, I asked you what you would have "monitored" and why that could have prevented the attack. You said that you'd monitor the flight schools after that SINGLE incident. You said you didn't understand why the FBI didn't do that. And that is the root cause of your error. The FBI has a limited number of people. Those people are not omniscient. They just can NOT "monitor" EVERYTHING. And >I< am not the one talking about 100% security. I am the one saying that there is no way to stop a dedicated suicide from killing himself and victims. But I'm also saying that those incidents are so RARE that you're more likely to die from a family member than from a terrorist. So I'm not willing to give the government any more authority to spy on me than it had before.
Post #33,549 by Mike 3/26/02 8:20:49 PM Reply	Not really. Not at all. >>Which proves my point You keep saying this but you never demonstrate how <lol> >>You're operating in hindsight. Nope. >>You see a "terrorist" in a flight school. You increase monitoring in all the >>flight schools. Errrrmmmmmm..................yeah. You look for any body who may be associated with him. Are those people in training schools? Where have THEY been? How the fuck is this hindsight if the WTC hasn't been attacked yet? Oh wait I see....its hindsight because it happened in the past......right? >>Why it didn't happen is just what I've said. You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING. That is correct......you monitor those things which you think look like the most promising leads. This, is incidentally a well-established approach to catching people that you want to find. It works for spies, criminals and lost kittens. You don't actually look EVERYWHERE because the world is actually quite a large place. Almost as big as a planet in fact. I put it to you that a pilot school who calls the FBI detailing how someone wants to only learn how to fly big jets excluding landing and taking off...is providing a promising lead. "We were busy doing other stuff" is not an acceptable explanation. Not least because they actually arrested him. If you want a far more plausible explanation......they thought he was one of the smaller fish and were going to let him loose and have him lead them to the leaders. Might not be correct but its a fuck of a lot better than "Well we can't be expected to watch evryone you know". Also: >>You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING. You have at no time demonstrated why it is necessary to monitor everything before you have ANY impact on security. My argument is that it IS possible to have an impact. Look...........you ask for WHAT possible things I could have monitored because you didn't think there were any. I pointed out some things that could have been used and therefore how they could have been apprehended. >>And >I< am not the one talking about 100% security. Course yer not! LMAO. I refute it thus. From: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=33065\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=33065] >>No matter how hard you try. There is no 100% guarantee of safety. (Your inability to keep track of your own ideas makes this just too easy ya know) >>I am the one saying that there is no way to stop a dedicated suicide from >>killing himself and victims. But....errrrrrrrrrm...well............errrrmmmmmmmm...........this happens all the time. Don't know what to tell you...... [link\|http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/08/06/LatestNews/LatestNews.31959.html\|http://www.jpost.co...s.31959.html] >>But I'm also saying that those incidents are so RARE that you're more likely >>to die from a family member than from a terrorist. I can't find the numbers for 2001, but I have them for 1985. They will help to serve a point. [link\|http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr95prs.htm\|http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr95prs.htm] The murder count for 1995 totaled 21,597, a total 7 percent lower than 1994 and 13 percent lower than 1991. The murder rate was 8 per 100,000 inhabitants. ---Based on supplemental data received, 77 percent of murder victims in 1995 were males, and 88 percent were persons 18 years or older. By race, 49 percent of victims were black and 48 percent were white. ---Data based on a total of 22,434 murder offenders showed that 91 percent of the assailants were males, and 85 percent were 18 years of age or older. Fifty-three percent of the offenders were black and 45 percent were white. ---Fifty-five percent of murder victims were slain by strangers or persons unknown. Among all female murder victims in 1995, 26 percent were slain by husbands or boyfriends, while 3 percent of the male victims were slain by wives or girlfriends. Crunch these numbers and you get 499 males killed by wives/girlfriends 1291 females killed husbands/boyfriends 1790 Total people killed Of these, how many of them had been the victims of threats/aggression/violent behavior prior to their murder. Hint: Its the vast majority. Very few are killed "out of the blue". Hence......you may ask yourself the following question "Do I feel threatened by aggression from my partner/spouse?" If the answer is yes........you statistically have a higher likelihood of being killed by them. If the answer is no..............as it is for most of us.....you have a statistically very LOW probability that you will be killed by a family member. You may effectively remove yourself from concern that you are going to be killed in this way. This perhaps explains WHY it is that people don't go through the world worrying about being killed by family members. It is statistically (and in reality) not likely to happen. Now......how many of the 1790 should we attribute to the "out of the blue" kinds of homicides which we SHOULD be concerned about because they come without warning or prior intimidation? Well....I don't know......but just for the sake of illustration, if we say it is 100 people...its gonna take 30 years for homicide by spouse to catch up with the WTC disaster (and that assumes there is never another attack). Also, when you make your quote about likelihoods..... "But I'm also saying that those incidents are so RARE that you're more likely to die from a family member than from a terrorist". What period of time did you have in mind.....a year? Clearly if you pick the year 2001......your numbers look a little shaky to say the least...3000 vs. ummmmmm something smaller. If you want to choose a longer window your statistics may start to "catch up". But one problem is that the larger you make your window the less meaningful is the observation. In 20 years time, the insight that its more likely to be killed by a family member than a terrorist might be met with "ya we know...they're all dead" or............it might be met with ....."does that include the 15,000 who died from smallpox in 2012?" So it seems that the insight is just plain wrong if you take the short-term view or it is not very valuable or useful in the long-term view. Either way its crap. What it all boils down to is how afraid you want to let yourself be. >>So I'm not willing to give the government any more authority to spy on me >>than it had before. You haven't demonstrated that they have gained more authority. The things they do now they could do before. They have less administrative work than they did before. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,613 by Brandioch 3/27/02 12:58:54 PM Reply	Yes, I did. >>Which proves my point You keep saying this but you never demonstrate how <lol> Actually, I did. Without the benefit of hindsight, you'd have to monitor the grocery stores and hardware stores and any other place each and every terrorist went. Why? Because they used box cutters in the attack. You want to focus on why they wanted to learn to steer, only. That is pure hindsight. For proof, I used your reference of the FBI being informed about one illegal wanting to learn to steer and NOT doing anything about it. Because, at the time, it didn't seem to be a threat. You can only SEE the threat NOW because you KNOW what the plan was. If you didn't KNOW what the plan was, you would HAVE to watch ALL the places they went. There isn't enough MANPOWER to do that. >>You see a "terrorist" in a flight school. You increase monitoring in all the >>flight schools. Errrrmmmmmm..................yeah. You look for any body who may be associated with him. Are those people in training schools? Where have THEY been? How the fuck is this hindsight if the WTC hasn't been attacked yet? Oh wait I see....its hindsight because it happened in the past......right? And you also see that the people associated with him have all been to the grocery store. So you start background checks on the people there. And you watch it too. It might be a message drop. The same for the hardware store. The same for EVERYPLACE they go. You're only FOCUSING on the flight training because you ALREADY know what their plan was. And to PROVE that, I will, once again, point out that the PROFESSIONALS in the field DID NOT SEE A PROBLEM. But you're SMARTER than the PROFESSIONALS, aren't you? No, you're only better INFORMED after-the-fact. And you keep mistaking being-informed-after-the-fact with intelligence. Why would you NOT have searched the grocery store? Do you even KNOW that they ALL didn't use the same one when they were there? Did they go to a local 7-11 staffed by arabs? Why aren't you recommending that those places be monitored? Because the information you're operating from has already been selected and verified for you. But you can't SEE that. You don't know where they stayed or if they all stayed at the same place or whether the place they stayed had any arabs on staff that might be sympathetic to their cause. You don't know this because the information you have has been PRE-SELECTED. You do NOT have to wade through daily reports of hundreds of individuals and attempt to cross-index their activities. This has ALREADY been done for you. And the way it was done is by identifying the hijackers and then WORKING BACKWARDS to trace their activities and seeing what OTHER suspects had similar activities. That is why "monitoring" will NOT work. You can't see the difference between hindsight and extrapolation. You think that, just because you have hindsight, you have foresight. >>Why it didn't happen is just what I've said. You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING. That is correct......you monitor those things which you think look like the most promising leads. This, is incidentally a well-established approach to catching people that you want to find. It works for spies, criminals and lost kittens. Yet, in your example, you ALREADY knew WHO the people were and WHERE they were. Otherwise, your previous example WOULD NOT WORK. You don't actually look EVERYWHERE because the world is actually quite a large place. Almost as big as a planet in fact. Okay, we ARE concerned with the US, right? Can we keep the discussion focused on the US? I put it to you that a pilot school who calls the FBI detailing how someone wants to only learn how to fly big jets excluding landing and taking off...is providing a promising lead. And I put to you that the FBI was informed AND DID NOT THINK IT WAS THAT BIG OF A LEAD. Now, in hindsight, you can see where they made a mistake. But the EXPERTS at the FBI did not think it was a big deal. So, you're smarter than the experts? No, just better-informed-after-the-fact. But you can't tell the difference. "We were busy doing other stuff" is not an acceptable explanation. Not least because they actually arrested him. They arrested him for being an illegal. Not for being odd in flight school. Notice that others had taken similar training. If you want a far more plausible explanation......they thought he was one of the smaller fish and were going to let him loose and have him lead them to the leaders. I'm sure he'd be able to do that FROM HIS CELL! He was being DEPORTED. Do you know what "deported" means? Might not be correct but its a fuck of a lot better than "Well we can't be expected to watch evryone you know". Just because something doesn't fit your fantasy, doesn't mean it is wrong. The FBI (the experts trained in this kind of thing) did NOT see the same threat you see. Nor do they have the manpower to track everyone and everyone they meet with. Also: >>You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING. You have at no time demonstrated why it is necessary to monitor everything before you have ANY impact on security. My argument is that it IS possible to have an impact. Actually, I have. Over and over and over and over again. But you can't tell the difference between information-after-the-fact and foresight so you don't understand what I'm saying. Tell me what OTHER places they had in common. Tell me why those were not under surveillance. Tell me why the OTHER people they met were not under surveillance. Because you CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING. And >YOU< do NOT know what is IMPORTANT PRIOR TO THE ATTACK. Once again, you have information-after-the-fact and THINK you understand the situation BEFORE it happened. Which, once again, means that YOU think YOU are better trained to handle the job than the EXPERTS at the FBI. Look...........you ask for WHAT possible things I could have monitored because you didn't think there were any. WRONG!!! I know EXACTLY what COULD have been monitored. But I'm not dumb enough to think I'd look for those things BEFORE the attack. I'm not asking you JUST what you'd monitor. I also want to know WHY you'd monitor THAT and NOT something else. Yes, you NOW know WHAT you'd monitor. -AND- You know WHY you'd monitor that. -BUT- You haven't told me WHY you'd filter out ANYTHING else. You CANNOT "monitor" EVERYTHING. A decision HAS to be made as to WHAT is "monitored" and what is NOT "monitored". The FIRST part of that is EASY given information-after-the-fact. The SECOND part of that is the difficult part. The SECOND part of that is the decision the FBI had to make back then. I pointed out some things that could have been used and therefore how they could have been apprehended. Yep. 100% based on your hindsight. Now, tell me why you would NOT have "monitored" the OTHER activities and personel and locations. >>And >I< am not the one talking about 100% security. Course yer not! LMAO. I refute it thus. From: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=33065\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=33065] >>No matter how hard you try. There is no 100% guarantee of safety. (Your inability to keep track of your own ideas makes this just too easy ya know) Hmmm, so, I say I'm not talking about 100% security and you refute that statement with a link to me saying that I'm not talking about 100% security? You must be giggling yourself silly over that one. >>I am the one saying that there is no way to stop a dedicated suicide from >>killing himself and victims. But....errrrrrrrrrm...well............errrrmmmmmmmm...........this happens all the time. Don't know what to tell you...... [link\|http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/08/06/LatestNews/LatestNews.31959.html\|http://www.jpost.co...s.31959.html] Perhaps you should read your own article. The guy was on his way to pick up explosives from another guy and he was arrested. Ah, when I said "suicide", you took that in the broadest sense to include someone who does not yet have the explosives/equipment/whatever. In which case, you are correct. Regarding you rather detailed usage of statistics. I'll accept your 1995 numbers as average for each year. Now, take that over 10 years. How many US citizens are killed, on average, each year (over the last 10) by terrorists as opposed to family members? Therefore, you are more likely to be killed by a family member than a terrorist. As to whether aggression exists or not, who cares? Are you trying to make a point? Does that point alter the statistics? "But I'm also saying that those incidents are so RARE that you're more likely to die from a family member than from a terrorist". What period of time did you have in mind.....a year? Clearly if you pick the year 2001......your numbers look a little shaky to say the least...3000 vs. ummmmmm something smaller. No. Let's say, 24 hours. I get to pick the 24 hour period. Please, try NOT to play statistical games. They are ONLY relevent OVER TIME. You want to pick the year with the single largest terrorist attack in US history? No. Average the data over 10 years. That will show the risk. Otherwise, figuring average deaths/day you can have approximately: 5 killed by family vs 3000 killed by terrorists -or- 5 killed by family vs ZERO killed by terrorists. No. I'm not going to play that. Take the data FOR EACH YEAR AND AVERAGE IT OVER 10 YEARS. If you don't see WHY I'm doing this, then you don't understand statistics. But one problem is that the larger you make your window the less meaningful is the observation. In 20 years time, the insight that its more likely to be killed by a family member than a terrorist might be met with "ya we know...they're all dead" or............it might be met with ....."does that include the 15,000 who died from smallpox in 2012?" Hmmm, I'm talking about the statistical likelyhood of being killed by a family member vs being killed by a terrorist. -and- For some reason you're going off on a tangent about smallpox in 2012. Okay......... was the smallpox due to a terrorist attack? Why are you attempting to factor in deaths that have not yet happened and may never happen? Whatever. So it seems that the insight is just plain wrong if you take the short-term view or it is not very valuable or useful in the long-term view. I'm talking deaths over time. There is ONE time range where more people were killed by terrorists than by family members. But that time range REQUIRES that it include the attack on 11 Sept. 2001. Now, I will explain the fallacy behind your "logic". Take that same time frame and move it OFF of 11 Sept 2001 and you will see a COMPLETELY different picture. In fact, keep moving it in 24 hour periods back in time and you will see the SAME fact that I've been saying all along. So, you want to use statistics, but only if they include a certain date and have a certain range? You really don't know ANYTHING about statistics, do you? That's why you're afraid and the statistical evidence doesn't make you less afraid. Either way its crap. What it all boils down to is how afraid you want to let yourself be. No, it is not "crap". But you're right on the second part. You can be as afraid as you want to be. That is your choice. And the statistics won't mean anything because you're operating off of your fear.
Post #33,404 by Mike 3/25/02 4:04:32 PM Reply	In addition: ...... I would run background checks on: a)anyone with a bald head b)anyone wanting to hire four belly dancers for longer than an hour c)anyone seeking treatment for chemical burns up to their elbows d)anyone with a name ending in "wi" That ought to do it I think. I believe this is a comprehensive profile on which to base all future investigations which is likely to save the government a ton of money and leave every body else languishing in unmitigated freedom. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,326 by wharris2 3/25/02 2:17:02 AM Reply	Re: Allow me to clarify. So, why weren't the OTHERS who were taking such training identified to the FBI? Why weren't they captured? And why the fuck are we deporting a terrorist? Probably because Moussaoui was flagged as being in the country illegally, not because of his peculiar interests in airplane piloting. In hindsight, of course wanting only to learn how to manoever an airplane (without taking off or landing) is odd. But that wasn't necessarily obvious at the time. "I didn't know you could drive to Europe." -- An eavesdropper, piping in when he overheard a conversation about someone who had driven to Montreal.
Post #33,239 by Ashton 3/23/02 1:35:00 PM Reply	The place of value in a world of things (?) Yes.. value is another word - like innovation - a casualty of The Bizness Mind and such doggerel as Farmily Valuez; lampooned as illustration of the fact that there are ~280 M Individul "family values" extant in just the US. It is a value judgment, not a 'statistical process' by which people decide.. or just let it slide.. to trade hard-won and always vulnerable individual Rights within a society for - illusionary "safety". (Or even occasionally - palpable safety like helmets and seat belts. These are a whole other thread). As our biznesses tend inexorably towards amalgamtion / strip malls / same-old same-old dozen Logos on everything for sale; as our 'tastes' tend also towards homogenization / LCD / same old sameness (now being spread around the world for Corp fun & profit): I assert that there are huge pressures to conform even more. Makes governing == Control ever so much easier. The absurdly-titled Patriot Act with its (as yet untested) evident anti-Constitutional provisions - I cite as evidence of what craven fear + expedience can produce in such a culture. Just mention "safety and convenience". You would condone this Act then? And ask for more of the same? Because somehow you will feel safer ? Between the Corporate drive for uniformity in all things (so much easier to sell to a bunch of clones - you Know what They will buy), and the spawning of such things as the DMCA and soon the SSSCA by whatever acronym - is not a pattern emerging here? Try thinking about quality rather than the quantization of 'stats'. Just One outrage (of any kind) is noticeable for the Idea(l)s it contravenes - note how the media will indeed consider One event quite newsworthy: like the case of the Medal of Honor [literally the Medal] being deemed "a possible Terorist weapon" on an airplane. THAT got publicity. So we aren't psychically dead. Yet. Quality not quantity. A Natural Principle of any civilization (or even, amidst those who once aspired towards civilization and decided to settle for mass consumption 24/7 instead) Ashton
Post #33,245 by Mike 3/23/02 3:08:45 PM Reply	Re: The place of value in a world of things (?) >>You would condone this Act then? And ask for more of the same? >>Because somehow you will feel safer ? I'm totally okay with it to be honest. I'm statistically unlikely to become a victim of terrorism. But I'm even less likely to be affected by the vast majority of the Patriot Act. In fact the likelihood is ZERO for most of it.....because it worded so as to affect only non-US citizens. The trade off is perhaps a legitimate debate to be engaged in by the foreign nationals who could be affected by it....but its moot for me. I can truthfully say that I have in no way been impacted by the monitoring since 9/11 or any of the changes in policy. I can honestly say that I don't feel I have ever been impacted by such at any time in the past. Perhaps I may in the future....I have an open mind about that. But the "knowns" are few about the threat we face. What I do know is that Sept 11 definitely DID have an impact for me. A peer at work lost a brother on the first plane that hit. A very sad day. We had an office at Liberty Plaza in Manhattan. We spent the day worried about colleagues and friends of colleagues. All were thankfully accounted for. Okay I know........hardly the front page ........ but enough for all this "statistical likelihood" to just seem like so much bollocks. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,251 by Brandioch 3/23/02 4:54:19 PM Reply	Interesting phrasing there. I'm statistically unlikely to become a victim of terrorism. True. But I'm even less likely to be affected by the vast majority of the Patriot Act. ? "vast majority"? So you believe that parts of it will affect you? In fact the likelihood is ZERO for most of it.....because it worded so as to affect only non-US citizens. Again, "most of it"? Perhaps I may in the future....I have an open mind about that. And you're willing to accept this for the illusion of security? Okay I know........hardly the front page ........ but enough for all this "statistical likelihood" to just seem like so much bollocks. Only when you don't understand it. Check out this URL: [link\|http://www-distance.syr.edu/bacon.html\|http://www-distance...u/bacon.html] In other words, I know someone who works with someone who's brother died on the first plane. Yet I'm still more concerned with governmental abuse than with terrorist attacks. And I was due to fly back from Alaska the day of the attack, but all the flights were grounded. So I was directly affected. And so on.
Post #33,254 by Mike 3/23/02 5:42:15 PM Reply	Re: Interesting phrasing there. >> "vast majority"? So you believe that parts of it will affect you? I'm prepared to accept that my likelihood is not zero. That's not too hard to grasp is it? :-) >>And you're willing to accept this for the illusion of security? Actually its not an illusion....which is another straw man you keep harping away on. I AM relatively safe, even after 9/11. The reason this is so is partly because I live in a town of just a few thousand and it is partly because people are working hard to ensure my safety. If I lived in Manhattan I would be (and feel) less safe than if I lived where I do. The difference is not huge, but its not the difference between ummmm zero and ummmm zero as you have so clumsily tried to claim. >>In other words, I know someone who works with someone who's brother died on >>the first plane. Yet I'm still more concerned with governmental abuse than >>with terrorist attacks. Oh for Christ's s sake.....all I'm saying is I cannot measure ANY impact on me from government monitoring. I know of noooooooooo way in which it has affected me. Actually........I would freely welcome any monitoring of my activities, I have nothing to hide. On the other hand........... the impact which the terrorist attacks have had is very real and tangible. And your Kevin Bacon bullshit only goes to emphasise this point. While it looks like 3,000 victims...the ripple is actually quite a lot larger. Many of us have a link (albeit remote) which makes the impact felt. On the other hand I have never felt my life to be negatively impacted by goverment monitoring. I have never met a person who has claimed this. I have never met a person who knew of any other person who had claimed this. From a pragmatic point of view....your average American feels that 9/11 affected them in some form or another. They KNOW that the chances of them being the target next time is small. But their concern is not based on "what will happen to me". P.S. Stop thinking you make a great point by pointing out some puerile game which almost nobody actually plays in practice, and then saying I don't understand how well connected the world is. That's at the root of MY bleeding point. If the world wasn't well connected...I couldn't very well argue that the 9/11 attack has ramifications beyond the immediately obvious. Could I now? And stop thinking you are the only person who read a book in his life. "Read 1984" is I think...... unnecessary. You are either: a) Insanely unaware of just how many people have read this book or b) Intentionally trying to be provocative. Did you know that 1984 was a piece of fiction? Its vision has actually failed to materialise (at least in the eyes of most of us). If you haven't already, read "Game Of Thrones" by George Martin. It tells you fuck all about his visions for society, but its a much better read than 1984. It comes highly recommended :-) -Kingslayer -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,269 by Brandioch 3/23/02 8:51:00 PM Reply	Those willing to trade liberty for security..... I'm prepared to accept that my likelihood is not zero. That's not too hard to grasp is it? :-) Not at all. The question is, how much liberty are you willing to sacrifice for "security"? Actually its not an illusion....which is another straw man you keep harping away on. No. A straw man is when I assign a position to you that you don't hold so I can attack it instead of your actual position. I say that your "security" is an illusion. That you aren't any safer TODAY, even after all the "increased" security than you were before the attack. I AM relatively safe, even after 9/11. I'd phrase that differently. I'd say you are as safe today as you were before the attack. Not safer, not less safe. The reason this is so is partly because I live in a town of just a few thousand and it is partly because people are working hard to ensure my safety. Now, consider this from a terrorist's point-of-view. The best targets are well protected. So, do you: #1. Go against them anyway and get captured? #2. Give up and wait? #3. Go against a less well protected target? Oh for Christ's s sake.....all I'm saying is I cannot measure ANY impact on me from government monitoring. I know of noooooooooo way in which it has affected me. Actually........I would freely welcome any monitoring of my activities, I have nothing to hide. I guess that says it all about your position. You have nothing to hide so you will not object to governmental monitoring of you. On the other hand........... the impact which the terrorist attacks have had is very real and tangible. And your Kevin Bacon bullshit only goes to emphasise this point. While it looks like 3,000 victims...the ripple is actually quite a lot larger. Many of us have a link (albeit remote) which makes the impact felt. Actually, you missed the point of that link. Anyone, anywhere, can, eventually, trace a link back to any other person on the planet. So, because you know someone who knew someone who was killed, you react based on your emotions rather than the logic that, statistically, you will not be killed by a terrorist. On the other hand I have never felt my life to be negatively impacted by goverment monitoring. Again, emotion. You do not >FEEL< impacted by it. I have never met a person who has claimed this. I have never met a person who knew of any other person who had claimed this. Did you go to that website I referenced? The one showing the FBI files of famous people? Did you learn anything about McCarthy and Hoover and Nixon? From a pragmatic point of view....your average American feels that 9/11 affected them in some form or another. They KNOW that the chances of them being the target next time is small. But their concern is not based on "what will happen to me". Again, emotion. And emotions will not be changed by logic. P.S. Stop thinking you make a great point by pointing out some puerile game which almost nobody actually plays in practice, and then saying I don't understand how well connected the world is. You pointed out that you knew somebody who knew somebody who was killed. I pointed out that it means nothing to make that claim as EVERYONE can trace a line back to someone that was killed. All it shows is how you're using emotion rather than logic. Did you know that 1984 was a piece of fiction? Its vision has actually failed to materialise (at least in the eyes of most of us). We've just entered a perpetual "war" against "terrorism". Our people are surrendering personal rights because of fear of terrorist attacks. Both key elements in 1984. If you haven't already, read "Game Of Thrones" by George Martin. It tells you fuck all about his visions for society, but its a much better read than 1984. Okay. Whatever. And it is relevent to this discussion because?
Post #33,282 by Mike 3/24/02 12:12:13 PM Reply	Re: Those willing to trade liberty for security..... >>No. A straw man is when I assign a position to you that you don't hold so I >>can attack it instead of your actual position. Some think its satisfied by simply attacking something other than the opponents best argument.......which........I think is.......the actual likelihood of you being watched by the government is very small. Even if they do watch you..... the likelihood of you actually being harmed by it in any way is even smaller. Remember the GPS thing? The degree to which security is an illusion can not be proved..... it is ultimately a judgement call. One can make the point that you won't catch these guys every time - so therefore the belief you are 100% secure is an illusion. This is the straw man I am alluding to. Have I misunderstood? >>Now, consider this from a terrorist's point-of-view. The best targets are >>well protected. So, do you: >>#1. Go against them anyway and get captured? >>#2. Give up and wait? >>#3. Go against a less well protected target? He he. Sounds like you are arguing that places which are not "best targets" are now under more threat. Thanks. >>I guess that says it all about your position. You may be right. Huh odd, I described a position. You say that described my position. How does this thing work again? >>Again, emotion. You do not >FEEL< impacted by it. Yawn. On the one hand you want to argue that I am letting my emotions rule me over the WTC. At the same time you take exception if I state that I don't "feel" I have been impacted by government monitoring. >>I'd phrase that differently. I'd say you are as safe today as you were before >>the attack. Not safer, not less safe. Just curious...on what did you base your assertion that there would ZERO attacks in the next 12 months? Terrorist patterns? Oh please tell me it was terrorist patterns <clappng hands>. >>Did you go to that website I referenced? The one showing the FBI files of >>famous people? Did you learn anything about McCarthy and Hoover and Nixon? Ooooh ooooh.....str.....stra.....straw.....ah fergettit. Let me ask.......are you attempting to assign to me the position that the government has never once monitored a person or a famous person? No I didn't think so. What else ya got? >>You pointed out that you knew somebody who knew somebody who was killed. I >>pointed out that it means nothing to make that claim as EVERYONE can trace a >>line back to someone that was killed. All it shows is how you're using >>emotion rather than logic. First of all, drop the "me logical you jane" routine. Your logic has so far been highly questionable at best. Secondly......that dog won't hunt anyway......you can be prosecuted for affecting someone's emotions negatively. Its called assault. Hundreds of thousands of people would have a very strong case as having been victims of an assault. Thirdly.........okay....fine lets assume we can ALL trace an impact back to 9/11. And the harm caused is therefore X kilograms of damage. Now apply your model to starvation and then political torture and then victims of nuclear bombs and then Krakatoa and then accidents in space. Yes, very useful model. Ummm hang on.........no wait its ONLY useful if you are trying to assemble an argument that the impact of event X was ......... <insert appropriate word here>. >>You pointed out that you knew somebody who knew somebody who was killed. Dude, not looking for a medal......just trying to point out that the impact is real and tangible for lots of people. Show how this is so for goverment monitoring. Please. Remember.......real.........and...........tangible. (Hint: Pointing out that Marily Monroe was watch does not cut it). >>Okay. Whatever. And it is relevent to this discussion because? Its another piece of fiction detailing a persons thoughts. The only thing I remember clearly from reading 1984 was someone who was arrested for being outside at the wrong time. I don't think that we have even begun to approach that kind of society. Just because it is possible to make ties to the book does not make it all true. If this technique is allowed to work, I would like to refer you to a number of fiction titles in which terrorists get hold of nuclear missiles and do bad things with them. Its JUST like 9/11 honest.... Now, having said that....here's an interesting link which supports your view. (Hate not to be even-handed, don't you?) [link\|http://www.hopedance.org/issue32/articles/pitteli-1984.htm\|http://www.hopedanc...eli-1984.htm] >>We've just entered a perpetual "war" against "terrorism". Perpetual is your word. You are scare mongering and attempting to appeal to peoeples emotions. Stop being emotional. Think logically. (Don't ya just hate that?) >>Our people are surrendering personal rights because of fear of terrorist >>attacks. No. Show me which of your rights have been surrendered since 9/11. Be specific please.....which legislation and which lines of it are a) theoretically capable of impacting you b) likely to impact you during the next 12 months I choose the next 12 months because if we have an infinite period of time it will be certain that you are impacted. Oh hang on a second.......I just thought of something .... finite resources and a finite lifetime......and ummmmmm..... no on second thoughts.....I realise that its just plain ridiculous to limit the question to just the next 12 months. Don't you agree? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,297 by Brandioch 3/24/02 5:48:12 PM Reply	Again, the FBI website I referenced. Some think its satisfied by simply attacking something other than the opponents best argument.......which........I think is.......the actual likelihood of you being watched by the government is very small. Even if they do watch you..... the likelihood of you actually being harmed by it in any way is even smaller. Okay, and on the FBI website, you can see the Lucille Ball has an FBI file on her because she registered under a political party that the current regime did not favour. So, by performing a LEGAL act, she ended up with the FBI holding a file on her. Now, whether any harm comes of this depends entirely upon how much you trust your government to give you the whole truth. I'm sure that, if you do not do anything the current regime feels threatened by, no harm will come to you. On the OTHER hand, may I remind you of McCarthy, once again? Are you familiar with the HUAC? With "blacklisting"? With being unable to hold a job in the field you were working in? Is that "harm"? And so on. Remember the GPS thing? Yep. And if it is for my protection and safety, I should be able to turn it off and on. He he. Sounds like you are arguing that places which are not "best targets" are now under more threat. Thanks. sigh Why is it that Osama ONLY aims for high-profile, world-type organizations? The WTC, the UN, the Pentagon (okay, that last is a symbol of our military). Why doesn't he do like Arafat does and have kids with pipebombs running into our churches and office buildings? Different terrorists have different agendas and different tactics. Osama wants us out of the Holy Land. His next attack will take a few years to build up. On the one hand you want to argue that I am letting my emotions rule me over the WTC. At the same time you take exception if I state that I don't "feel" I have been impacted by government monitoring. Nope. They are both emotional states. You do not feel threatened by your government watching you but you do feel threatened by the possibility of terrorists attacking. It is all perception. Just curious...on what did you base your assertion that there would ZERO attacks in the next 12 months? Terrorist patterns? Oh please tell me it was terrorist patterns <clappng hands>. Also the time it takes to put together a plan of that type. The training involved. The fact that Osama didn't have another plan in effect immediately after the first. I think our little mail poisoner is home grown. Strange how you don't hear much about the search for that one. Ooooh ooooh.....str.....stra.....straw.....ah fergettit. Let me ask.......are you attempting to assign to me the position that the government has never once monitored a person or a famous person? No I didn't think so. What else ya got? No. You are saying that >YOU< do not "feel" threatened by the government watching you. I am providing examples of when the government has watched people (with less authority than they want now) and what those consequences are. Whether you "feel" threatened by them is up to you. Logic will not change emotions. The same as you "feel" threatened by terrorists. Despite the statistics that show you are more likely to be killed by a family member than a terrorist. But you don't "feel" threatened by your family. Pure emotion. First of all, drop the "me logical you jane" routine. Your logic has so far been highly questionable at best. Statistics. You're about as likely to win the Lottery as to be killed by a terrorist. Yet you do not deal with those two statistics in the same manner. You are stating your emotions. Secondly......that dog won't hunt anyway......you can be prosecuted for affecting someone's emotions negatively. Its called assault. Hundreds of thousands of people would have a very strong case as having been victims of an assault. I don't understand the reference that brought that on. Thirdly.........okay....fine lets assume we can ALL trace an impact back to 9/11. And the harm caused is therefore X kilograms of damage. Now apply your model to starvation and then political torture and then victims of nuclear bombs and then Krakatoa and then accidents in space. Yes, very useful model. Ummm hang on.........no wait its ONLY useful if you are trying to assemble an argument that the impact of event X was ......... <insert appropriate word here>. What are you talking about? I illustrated that EVERYONE has some link back to everyone else. That was in response to your item about knowing someone who knows someone who was killed. So it made it more emotional for you. Again, your emotions. Dude, not looking for a medal......just trying to point out that the impact is real and tangible for lots of people. And as I've pointed out, it is "real and tangible" for everyone on the planet. Everyone can trace a line back to every victim. So? Show how this is so for goverment monitoring. Please. Remember.......real.........and...........tangible. I think you left a bit out of that. The only thing I remember clearly from reading 1984 was someone who was arrested for being outside at the wrong time. I don't think that we have even begun to approach that kind of society. We are in perpetual "war" and in fear of terrorists. We are getting closer to that society every day. Just because it is possible to make ties to the book does not make it all true. If this technique is allowed to work, I would like to refer you to a number of fiction titles in which terrorists get hold of nuclear missiles and do bad things with them. Eventually, they will. Perpetual is your word. You are scare mongering and attempting to appeal to peoeples emotions. Stop being emotional. Think logically. Tell me when it will end. In Kuwait, we knew the objectives. We knew when we would win. Tell me when we will win the "war" against "terrorism". No. Show me which of your rights have been surrendered since 9/11. Be specific please.....which legislation and which lines of it are a) theoretically capable of impacting you b) likely to impact you during the next 12 months Wiretaps. It is now easier to get wiretaps on peripheral subjects.
Post #33,300 by Mike 3/24/02 6:27:51 PM Reply	One more time with feeling... >>Wiretaps. It is now easier to get wiretaps on peripheral subjects Nope. That's an answer to the question "what are the rule changes which you find threatening?". One more chance: SHOW ME WHICH OF YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN SURRENDERED. P.S. I think you are making an emotional response you only >feel< that its more threatening. You can't demonstrate how it IS more threatening. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,316 by orion 3/24/02 10:16:47 PM Reply	Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness we where promised these things, yet they take them away when they don't trust us and have us monitored and we have not done a single thing wrong. Guilty until proven innocent, I thought it was the other way around? I could be monitored right now, and put on a blacklist, and that is why I can't get a job? My depression must have raised a red flag on my profile? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #33,348 by Brandioch 3/25/02 10:14:55 AM Reply	It isn't a threat. The government now has more authority to wire tap me than it did before. Where's the emotion in that?
Post #33,367 by Mike 3/25/02 12:46:28 PM Reply	You WANT to believe it....... so you do. The wiretapping you are alluding to was ALWAYS possible before, it was just that a lot more warrants needed to be served. From: [link\|http://www.acm.org/usacm/DOJ_Terrorism_Law.htm\|http://www.acm.org/...rism_Law.htm] Moreover, since, under previous law, a court could only authorize the installation of a pen/trap device within its own jurisdiction, when one provider indicated that the source of a communication was a different carrier in another district, a second order in the new district became necessary. This order had to be acquired by a supporting prosecutor in the new district from a local federal judge \ufffd neither of whom had any other interest in the case. Indeed, in one case investigators needed three separate orders to trace a hacker\ufffds communications. This duplicative process of obtaining a separate order for each link in the communications chain has delayed or \ufffd given the difficulty of real-time tracing \ufffd completely thwarted important investigations. You have no evidence of how/why this is likely to impact you. You have not described anything which could happen now which could not have happened before 9/11. You have no evidence for why the government is now more interested in you than they were before. You are letting yourself feel threatened and responding emotionally. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,395 by Brandioch 3/25/02 3:14:06 PM Reply	You're contradicting yourself. You WANT to believe it....... so you do. Which implies that the situation is different than I believe it to be. The wiretapping you are alluding to was ALWAYS possible before, it was just that a lot more warrants needed to be served. Which was my point when I said that the government can wire tap me easier now. So, if they had to expend X hours to get Y warrants to spy on me before, and now they have to expend .5X hours to get Y warrants to spy on me... Then it is easier for them to spy on me. You have no evidence of how/why this is likely to impact you. I have evidence that the government has kept files on people in the past for doing perfectly legitimate and legal things. Will this affect me? That depends upon what the current regime views as worthy of investigation. Back in McCarthy's days, being in cinema was often enough justification. You have not described anything which could happen now which could not have happened before 9/11. Not that it couldn't have happened before. Just that it is easier for them to do it NOW. You have no evidence for why the government is now more interested in you than they were before. I didn't say they were. Just that they had an easier job of doing it now than they did before.
Post #33,397 by Mike 3/25/02 3:22:42 PM Reply	Tell me....... >>So, if they had to expend X hours to get Y warrants to spy on me before, >>and now they have to expend .5X hours to get Y warrants to spy on me... >>Then it is easier for them to spy on me. Do you believe that making it easier has caused you to surrender any of your rights? If so, which ones.....and how? -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,413 by Mike 3/25/02 7:32:14 PM Reply	Kettle calling pot black Reconcile: >>I didn't say they were. Just that they had an easier job of doing it now than >>they did before. with...... >>To "help" in that effort, you're proposing that we surrender even more rights >>to the government that has already abused its authority? What ARE the rights which are being surrendered then? Is it.......ummmmmmmmmmmmmm............the right to ahhhhhhhhhh a lengthy application process before a wire tap occurs? Please tell me its more than this. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,429 by CRConrad 3/25/02 8:54:11 PM Reply	Why should it be more - is that not an important right?!?
Post #33,441 by Ashton 3/25/02 10:49:09 PM Reply	When they came for the trade-unionists, I was not a trade-unionist, so I didn't protest. When they came for the Gypsies ... ... When they came for the Jews ... ... Now they come for me, and there is no one left to protest. [paraphrased] So.. NONE of the Ashcroft Covenant is of importance if.. just now and thus far: you don't 'feel personally affected'. Is that your mantra? Well then, Mr. Babbitt - just keep on keeping your nose clean; don't whistle any dirty songs and - you'll be just fine. Ashton Possibly a reread of 1984 will disclose a few more events and ""issues"" than your one-sentence remembrance; sounds as if it made no lasting impression on your 'feel'ings.
Post #33,455 by Mike 3/26/02 7:13:28 AM Reply	Oh you bitch >>Possibly a reread of 1984 will disclose a few more events and ""issues"" than >>your one-sentence remembrance; sounds as if it made no lasting impression on >>your 'feel'ings. Absolutely correct. It made no lasting impression. However I can see that it has the potential to be something which would give sleepless nights to those who want to feel threatened and give the chronically bored something to chafe about. >>Well then, Mr. Babbitt - just keep on keeping your nose clean; don't whistle >>any dirty songs and - you'll be just fine. {sarcasm on} Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah but (if you've been following the thread) I don't need to do any of the above....I have my impregnable force field of statistics to guarantee my safety and security.........don't I? {sarcasm off} All aspects of the world painted by George Orwell have already existed either in Hitler's Third Reich or Stalin's Soviet Union. There's no need to resort to a tired cliche when you want evidence that man and governments can do bad things. Unless that is, you want a pre-packaged fast-food "acronym" to engage in some gold old-fashioned fear mongering a la 1950s. You see, persuading anyone that we are headed the way of the Third Reich...that actually might be difficult.....because people will try to compare reality with reality. I find it fucking astonishing that people like Brandioch will pompously refer another to "1984" as if by doing so some great insight is being performed.......but then that same person will tell you that "we fought the second world war according to the rule of law". He (and others) apparently were forgetting that..... "He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future." I don't want to open up that whole debate anew.......I think its clear what the point is. If not ... think it over. Just as radical philosophers can engage in the hours of questioning the very fundamentals of existence, so it is possible to do with our own government(s). But there comes a time when you have to revisit all those questioned assumptions and mould from them a model which helps you get through life. You can pretend the wall is not solid if it suits you....but as a guiding principle its probably not going to serve you well. If you WANT to, its possible to tease out a sinsiter plot, its possible to see things which are threatening, its possible to imagine yourself as one of the "suppressed" souls. And its totally okay to be afraid of it. But I have a big problem with people who will allow themselves to be scared by this and then at the same time be dismissive of those who fear the violence being threatened......fear those who clearly have been trying to tool up with the means of causing mass destruction. The degree to which they could succeed is very poorly understood - anyone who claims otherwise is lying. The statistical argument is a bogus useless piece of crap. Were this not so, it could be used to allay fears about what happened to Louima(sp?) in a New York police station. Oh but wait......you say....when viewing THAT you want to see it in the broader perspective of ALL civil rights and freedoms? OKay I'll grant you that. In which case......I would like to view the WTC in the broadwer context of war, violence and social unrest in general. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,493 by Brandioch 3/26/02 1:11:11 PM Reply	I find that strange. All aspects of the world painted by George Orwell have already existed either in Hitler's Third Reich or Stalin's Soviet Union. Yet when someone points out that we're starting down that same road, it's okay as long as >YOU<, personally, don't feel threatened? I have a newsflash for you. Most of the citizens of the USSR were NOT personally threatened by their government. Only the ones that stepped out of line, politically, verbally, whatever. You see, persuading anyone that we are headed the way of the Third Reich...that actually might be difficult.....because people will try to compare reality with reality. Then people need to learn the ORIGINS of the Third Reich and the USSR and various other totalitarian socialist regimes. People WANTED Hitler to head their government. They WANTED to know that they were strong enough to defeat their enemies. They WANTED to have someone who could easily identify those enemies. They were willing to give up a few rights to help the Reich. I find it fucking astonishing that people like Brandioch will pompously refer another to "1984" as if by doing so some great insight is being performed.......but then that same person will tell you that "we fought the second world war according to the rule of law". Umm, we bombed cities and civilians in WWII. AFTER the war, we treated the prisoners well. We helped our enemies rebuild their countries. We tried the criminals in front of the world. But we killed innocents who's only crime was to be born on the wrong side. But I have a big problem with people who will allow themselves to be scared by this and then at the same time be dismissive of those who fear the violence being threatened......fear those who clearly have been trying to tool up with the means of causing mass destruction. And, once again, you are being ruled by your emotion. Instead of looking at the situation and thinking about what happened and why and how to prevent it in the future, you're making an emotional decision based on your fear to surrender your rights for "security". I've asked you before what, specifically, you'd "monitor" now. None of your examples would have changed the attack. Your "solution" wouldn't have stopped the LAST attack, so why do you think it will stop the NEXT attack? But you aren't thinking. You're reacting. Emotionally. And the rights you lose today will NOT be regained easily. The "threat" of being killed by a terrorist is less likely than the "threat" that you'll be killed by a car. Deal with it. Life has risks. Instead of trying to hide from them, face them and understand what you CAN do about them and what you can NOT do about them. Or at LEAST try to see whether the SPECIFIC actions you advocate will, in what way, would have PREVENTED the first attack (and how, specifically) or wold have REDUCED its likelyhood of success. The statistical argument is a bogus useless piece of crap. No. It is a rational approach to the situation. You are less likely to be killed by a terrorist than by a car. Yet you will deal with the threat from cars because they allow you some freedom. Yet you are willing to sacrifice some freedom to be "safe" from terrorists. Even though that "safety" is an illusion. As I have demonstrated by asking you to specify what you'd be monitoring and how that would have prevented the first attack. Were this not so, it could be used to allay fears about what happened to Louima(sp?) in a New York police station. Again, fear is an emotion. Statistics will NEVER change someone's EMOTIONAL reaction. Never. Logic and emotions DO NOT MIX. In which case......I would like to view the WTC in the broadwer context of war, violence and social unrest in general. So? Isn't that what I was saying? Isn't that what I referenced in 1984? The state of perpetual war? The fear of terrorist attacks?
Post #33,510 by Mike 3/26/02 3:29:14 PM Reply	Hmmmm? >>All aspects of the world painted by George Orwell have already existed either in Hitler's Third Reich >>or Stalin's Soviet Union. Yet when someone points out that we're starting down that same road, it's >>okay as long as >YOU<, personally, don't feel threatened? I already made it clear that you don't have to be personally threatened to be concerned. Remember? >>I have a newsflash for you. Most of the citizens of the USSR were NOT personally threatened by their government. >>Only the ones that stepped out of line, politically, verbally, whatever. You are saying that statistically, the citizens were unlikley to be threatened? Your face should be red. >>Then people need to learn the ORIGINS of the Third Reich and the USSR and various other totalitarian socialist regimes. Very well put. Less time spent reading fiction perhaps? >>I find it fucking astonishing that people like Brandioch will pompously refer another to "1984" as if by doing so some great insight is being performed.......but then that same person will tell you that "we fought the second world war according to the rule of law". >>Umm, we bombed cities and civilians in WWII. AFTER the war, we treated the prisoners well. We helped our enemies rebuild their countries. We tried the criminals in front of the world. But we killed innocents who's only crime was to be born on the wrong side. >>But I have a big problem with people who will allow themselves to be scared by this and then at the same time be dismissive of those who fear the violence being threatened......fear those who clearly have been trying to tool up with the means of causing mass destruction. >And, once again, you are being ruled by your emotion. I've said that I feel safe from the terrorists. I've said that I don't think I am going to be monitored by the government. It is woefully inadequate to argue that someone is being emotional after they point out that there is paradox in how threatened people are allowing themselves to feel. You are the one who is worried. I think your worry is unnecessary. You don't. I think we are talking about your emotions and your emotional responses. >>Instead of looking at the situation and thinking about what happened and why and how to prevent it in the future, >>you're making an emotional decision based on your fear to surrender your rights for "security". You have not listed ONE right which has been surrendered. Because you have not surrendered. (The right to have wiretapping be made difficult is not a right you have). >>I've asked you before what, specifically, you'd "monitor" now. And I told you.....anything which you find a concern. >>None of your examples would have changed the attack. Your "solution" wouldn't have stopped the LAST attack, so why do you think it will stop the NEXT attack? >>The "threat" of being killed by a terrorist is less likely than the "threat" that you'll be killed by a car. >>Or at LEAST try to see whether the SPECIFIC actions you advocate will, in what way, would have PREVENTED the first attack (and how, specifically) or wold have REDUCED its likelyhood of success. Even though that "safety" is an illusion. As I have demonstrated by asking you to specify what you'd be monitoring and how that would have prevented the first attack. Oh jeesh........you really thought that was worth pursuing? Yawn. It kinda goes like this: a) you identify some people you are interested in examining more closely (see below). b) you monitor their movements using GPS when they rent a car. You note all the people they visit and put those people under surveillance. c) you monitor that, coincidentally, several suspected terrorists are arriving at airports at the same time (using GPS). d) you delay the plane - and discover that they have all bought expensive one way tickets e) they are given a thorough search f) the plane is given a thorough search g) You break up the suspects into smaller groups and tell them they will need to fly on separate planes. g) you place Federal air marshals on the plane (some in the cockpit some in the cabin) So.......there's a fairly simple scenario which isn't contrived. It describes WHAT I would have monitored. I have described HOW it might have helped. No doubt the FBI/CIA/FAA have more tools than I know about. What else ya got? [link\|http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/11-05-2001/vo17no23_prevented.htm\|http://www.thenewam...revented.htm] The December 1994 hijacking of an Air France flight from Algiers was carried out by four members of the "Phalange of the Signers in Blood," a subsidiary of Algeria\ufffds Armed Islamic Group. The terrorists seized control of the plane and demanded that it fly to Marseilles, where it was to be refueled for a trip to Paris. The hijackers also demanded that the Airbus A300 a plane of comparable size to the Boeing 767s that were used to attack the World Trade Center be loaded with 27 tons of fuel, which was three times what was necessary for the short trip. After debriefing released hostages and working with other sources, French authorities determined that the terrorists intended either to explode the plane over Paris or ram it into the Eiffel Tower. Corroborating evidence, in the form of 20 sticks of dynamite, was found by French troops who stormed the plane and killed the hijackers. FBI agents tracked Moussaoui\ufffds movements to the Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, where he logged 57 hours of flight time earlier in 2001 but was never allowed to fly on his own because of his poor skills. This alone should have set off alarm bells, since a confessed Al Qaeda operative, Abdul Hakim Murad, had trained at the same school, as part of preparations for a suicide hijack attack on CIA headquarters. Murad testified about these plans in the 1996 trial of Ramzi Ahmed Yusef, the principal organizer of the 1993 World Trade Center car-bombing. Several of the September 11 hijackers had either enrolled in or visited the Oklahoma flight school, as a more thorough investigation determined in the aftermath of the suicide hijackings. [link\|http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/mous-j05.shtml\|http://www.wsws.org...us-j05.shtml] Excerpts: * On August 13th, a flight school in Eagan, Minnesota, informed the FBI that a student named Zacarias Moussaoui had asked to take 747 flight simulator training, but that he only wanted to learn how to steer the aircraft not take off or land. Moussaoui, who was in this country illegally, was arrested and held for deportation. But, as Novak notes, "no connection was made with the 1995 revelations" about "Bojinka." In fact, the October 6th New York Times reported that the FBI "held back its own agents" from investigating Moussaoui. * The US government was monitoring the electronic communications of bin Laden and his associates during the extensive period of advance planning which preceded the September 11 attack. * Several of the September 11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, the alleged ringleader, were under direct surveillance by US agencies as suspected terrorists during 2000 and 2001. Yet they were allowed to travel freely into and out of the US and eventually carry out their plans. >>Even though that "safety" is an illusion. As I have demonstrated by asking you to specify....... When someone declines to take you up on specific request......it doesn't >prove< anything. I ask you to list the specific rights you were surrendering. You came up with....they can get wiretaps more easily now.....no talk about your rights and the potential impact whatsoever. You're describing something you fear will impact you. You have not submitted ANY evidence of how it will. You have not submitted any evidence of how things are worse now than they were. (perhaps less FBI agents engaged in red tape?). Hooohooooo...very threatening. Your ability to point to a government who kept files on famous people is no more relevant than the fact that we have had goverments who supported slavery. You recognise that the guy arrested at the canadia border probably prevented a disaster. Ahhh but that was >before<. So what? It proves that the safety of people can be impacted by monitoring and vigilance. Become less vigilant and you will become less safe. Me personally? Maybe not. We've already eastablished that I'm not concerned about me. You on the other hand are concerned that >YOU< will be monitored. And you think its likely that you will be monitored. You have no reason to explain why this should be so. You have no explanation for why, in this case, the statistics confound you time and again.... but in the case of terrorism.......the statistics leave you completely without danger. Your statistic that you are more likely to be killed by a family member is hopelessly flawed because America is very violent society. The statistical relationship changes if you use Norway or England as your backdrop. The idea that people should measure the threat of terrorism to the nation depending on the context in which it occurs... ..is nothing if not novel. If its allowed to prevail....its a sad indictment. One more time......I'm not worried by either. You're the worried one. -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,537 by Brandioch 3/26/02 5:47:14 PM Reply	What are you saying? You are saying that statistically, the citizens were unlikley to be threatened? Your face should be red. Okay, you've lost me. Perhaps something called "an explanation" could be provided? Very well put. Less time spent reading fiction perhaps? Perhaps. Can you tell me what the first laws were that were passed by the National Socialists? I've said that I feel safe from the terrorists. I've said that I don't think I am going to be monitored by the government. If you feel safe from the terrorists, why are you allowing the government to increase its authority to monitor people? Because you don't think OTHER people are safe? Is that it? So, you're advocating that the government be granted greater authority to monitor the people so that some OTHER people can be "safer"? But I thought it was personal to you because you know someone who knows someone who was killed in the attack. You are the one who is worried. I think your worry is unnecessary. You don't. I think we are talking about your emotions and your emotional responses. Really? That is so FASCINATING. So, what am I worried about? That the government will increase its authority to monitor US citizens? Ummmm, isn't that EXACTLY what they're proposing? So, what I'm "worried" about happening is exactly what >IS< happening? But you think my "worry" is "unnecessary"? Is that "unnecessary" in that you don't think it is important as you don't feel it will affect you? Or is that "unnecessary" as in....well, there's really no other phrasing, is there? You have not listed ONE right which has been surrendered. Because you have not surrendered. (The right to have wiretapping be made difficult is not a right you have). It is NOT difficult to get a wire tap on me. It just requires that >I< be under investigation and NOT because I know someone who is under investigation. >>I've asked you before what, specifically, you'd "monitor" now. And I told you.....anything which you find a concern. And you'll find the manpower to do this HOW? Allow me to rephrase this for you. NOW, if an arab tries to carry a box cutter onto a plane, the entire place is locked down. THEN, it was nothing. The word is "specific". Oh jeesh........you really thought that was worth pursuing? Yawn. It kinda goes like this: a) you identify some people you are interested in examining more closely (see below). b) you monitor their movements using GPS when they rent a car. You note all the people they visit and put those people under surveillance. c) you monitor that, coincidentally, several suspected terrorists are arriving at airports at the same time (using GPS). d) you delay the plane - and discover that they have all bought expensive one way tickets e) they are given a thorough search f) the plane is given a thorough search g) You break up the suspects into smaller groups and tell them they will need to fly on separate planes. g) you place Federal air marshals on the plane (some in the cockpit some in the cabin) Okay. B. This is where your scenario can affect ANYONE. That includes neighbors, co-workers, friends, and so on. I want you to think about the manpower required for this. C. "suspected terrorists"? And you're letting them move around? Freely? Why? Why aren't they under arrest? Why do you suspect them? Again, hindsight. If they are "suspected terrorists", then why are they in the country? If you already know about them, then why are they travelling freely? Allow me to REMIND YOU that the ONE case you quoted was someone in the country ILLEGALLY. No, your plan, as always, relies upon PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. If you KNOW they are "suspected terrorists", then they are arrested or deported. If you do NOT know, then your plan fails from the beginning. From your articles. Do I really need to say that I told you so? From those reports, it seems that we knew who they were and where they were. Yet nothing was done. Why would that be? Hmmmmm? Because the PEOPLE who were doing the monitoring didn't think that their actions were a threat? You came up with....they can get wiretaps more easily now.....no talk about your rights and the potential impact whatsoever. I have gone over the impact already. It is now easier for the government to spy on its citizens. You're describing something you fear will impact you. You have not submitted ANY evidence of how it will. No. It will NOT impact me. But that does NOT mean that I want the government to have the AUTHORITY to do so. You have not submitted any evidence of how things are worse now than they were. "Worse"? That's a subjective judgement call. Your ability to point to a government who kept files on famous people is no more relevant than the fact that we have had goverments who supported slavery. Good point. It shows that our government has NOT always been MOST interested in the FREEDOM or SAFETY of its citizens. And that is why I oppose any further extension of its authority. It has abused it in the past and people have to fight and DIE to get those rights. Yes, people died to end slavery and to end segregation and to be allowed to vote. You recognise that the guy arrested at the canadia border probably prevented a disaster. Like I've said before. You're plans require prior knowledge. And we've had situations where we've had prior knowledge and the people trained in these matters STILL didn't stop the attack. Because those people do NOT have the advantage of your hindsight. Ahhh but that was >before<. So what? It proves that the safety of people can be impacted by monitoring and vigilance. But I never said they couldn't be. Just that there's NO REASON to monitor THE PUBLIC. Nor would monitoring the PUBLIC have stopped the attack. Become less vigilant and you will become less safe. Possibly. But that does not mean that becoming more "vigilant" will make you more safe. You on the other hand are concerned that >YOU< will be monitored. Nope. I'm not. And you think its likely that you will be monitored. Again, nope. I don't. You have no reason to explain why this should be so. Because it isn't so. You have no explanation for why, in this case, the statistics confound you time and again.... but in the case of terrorism.......the statistics leave you completely without danger. Hmmm, I wasn't aware that you had presented any statistics. Just that you didn't think that you would be monitored. Actually, allow me to put it in this light. You cannot GUARANTEE that you'll be a victim of a terrorist attack (on US soil). I can GUARANTEE that I'll be monitored. All I have to do is cross the lines that trigger the government's paranoia. Your statistic that you are more likely to be killed by a family member is hopelessly flawed because America is very violent society. Flawed how? The people who live with you, who love you, who raised you are MORE likely to kill you than a fanatical fundamentalist suicide bomber is? How is that "flawed"? The statistical relationship changes if you use Norway or England as your backdrop. Cool. Move there. Now. Otherwise, try to keep the statistics applicable. We're in the US. The attack occured in the US. I'm using US statistics. The idea that people should measure the threat of terrorism to the nation depending on the context in which it occurs... ..is nothing if not novel. Novel how? If you're not measuring it in the context in which it occures, how ARE you measuring it?
Post #33,552 by Mike 3/26/02 8:57:00 PM 3/26/02 9:01:26 PM Reply	Do us all a favor Hey ...send us a special sign whenever your fundamental position changes, that way we can stop wasting our time on you. Much appreciated. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=33065\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=33065] Brandioch: Which is when/where we get into the question of whether the government will ever care where I go or what I do. Yes, they will. The post above: Mike: You on the other hand are concerned that >YOU< will be monitored. Brandioch: Nope. I'm not. Mike: And you think its likely that you will be monitored. Brandioch: Again, nope. I don't. Mike: You have no reason to explain why this should be so. Brandioch: Because it isn't so. This one's over. You're wasting my time. -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike March 26, 2002, 08:59:39 PM EST Edited by Mike March 26, 2002, 09:01:26 PM EST Expand All History
Post #33,599 by Brandioch 3/27/02 11:49:29 AM Reply	Let me explain "context" to you. Which is when/where we get into the question of whether the government will ever care where I go or what I do. Yes, they will. The same government that kept a file on Martin Luther King will care where I go. Or, rather, they will care what vehicles are parked in proximity to certain locations. What cell phones are carried in certain buildings. As long as you never question the government or meet with those who do, you'll have nothing to worry about. Yes, you did skip over a bit when you quoted that, didn't you? Now, context. I will NOT die from falling off a tall building. Not because gravity doesn't work. Not because the fall wouldn't kill me. Not because I'm "afraid" of gravity. Not because I'm "afraid" of tall buildings. But because I'm not going to jump off of a tall building. So, is the government going to track me? No. Am I afraid of the government tracking me? No. Can I get the government to track me? Yes. Have OTHER people doing LEGAL acts that are "good" been tracked by the government? Yes. So, is the government going to track me/am I going to die falling from a building? No/No. Would the government track me/would I die falling from a building? Yes/Yes. Has the government tracked other "good" people/have other people died from falling from buildings? Yes/Yes. You see, the reason I included King's name was to show that the government would track someone doing what King did. Now, have you seen my name on national television doing anything equivalent to King? Now, if I did, would the government track me? If I don't, would the government track me? "Context". "Examples".
Post #33,513 by Arkadiy 3/26/02 3:45:13 PM Reply	Conditions in USSR >>>>>>>>>>>> I have a newsflash for you. Most of the citizens of the USSR were NOT personally threatened by their government. Only the ones that stepped out of line, politically, verbally, whatever. <<<<<<<<<<<< This is what I find amazing about you folks. You keep on gabbing about USSR and how people felt there, and you don't understand it. At all. EVERYONE in that cursed place was PERSONALLY threatened by the governement all the time. Everyone's behavior was changed due to that threat. There were things you could not do, dared not say, dared not think due to fear of governement. I am not talking crime. How many of you would even think of governement before joining an investment club? My mom would. How many of you would consider governement's opinion before going to a concert? My grand-mother was deathly afraid when I went to hear a Russian rocker in my own high school, in the middle of Perestroika.A teacher of literature went pale when somebody suggested we study a certain Russian dissident poet (she got fired for such studies before, could not work for 15 years). You simply forget that the "line" was going right across your daily lives. In a very real sence, it was impossible to live w/o stepping over it. In 70s, 80% of meat in our house was procured illegally, from black market. My mom did it so that I could have meat every day, not once a week. It was not expensive. But it was illegal.Do you think if governement when you go to a supermarket? I could rant forever... Stuff like this just pisses me off. Remeber that cartoon, published shortly after 9/11? Where an immigrant from Iraq tels FBI guys who picked him up for a "friendly chat" about how US is getting to be just like his old country? Bullshit! In his old country, he wouldn't dare to peep in the presence of almighty Secret Police, or any police at all. Yes Sir! Immediately, Sir! Or, if you are a dissident - just silence. This cartoon disproves its own premise better that any speech I could have made.
Post #33,528 by Brandioch 3/26/02 4:47:57 PM Reply	Check my point. I said: I have a newsflash for you. Most of the citizens of the USSR were NOT personally threatened by their government. Only the ones that stepped out of line, politically, verbally, whatever. If you toed the line, you lived without any problems. I only have the reports from the USSR and my experience in East Berlin to go from. You had black market meat? You stepped over the line. How many of you would even think of governement before joining an investment club? Hmmm, private investment? In the USSR? Not something I'd recommend. They did have to maintain their Communistic rhetoric. We have more freedom here. As you've noted, we can study what we want (what was that about the government being able to check your library reading list), say what we want (I won't even go into this one right now), invest where we want (just make sure that there aren't any ties to terrorist organizations there), and so on. You simply forget that the "line" was going right across your daily lives. And I'm watching people trying to push that line further into our lives here. Bullshit! In his old country, he wouldn't dare to peep in the presence of almighty Secret Police, or any police at all. Yes Sir! Immediately, Sir! Or, if you are a dissident - just silence. This cartoon disproves its own premise better that any speech I could have made. We now have an unknown number of people in prison in this country who are not allowed to talk to their lawyers. Who have not been charged. And so on. We're not yet as bad as the USSR was, but we're starting down that road. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Post #33,550 by Mike 3/26/02 8:27:26 PM 3/26/02 8:29:31 PM Reply	Listen to him >>If you toed the line, you lived without any problems. I only have the reports >>from the USSR and my experience in East Berlin to go from. Would it hurt to recognise that guy might know what he's talking about? -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike March 26, 2002, 08:29:31 PM EST Expand All History
Post #33,600 by Brandioch 3/27/02 11:53:26 AM Reply	Read what I said and what he said. I said that if you toe the line, you have nothing to worry about. He said that his family dealt with the black market. Oooooh... Seems that they weren't toeing the line. That's why they were afraid. Which is my point. The same as in the US. Except here, you can perform LEGAL acts (like registering to vote for a political party) and have the government start a file on you (reference my earlier post from the FBI's website).
Post #33,715 by Arkadiy 3/28/02 12:40:10 PM Reply	Re: Check my point. >>>>>>>>>> If you toed the line, you lived without any problems. I only have the reports from the USSR and my experience in East Berlin to go from. You had black market meat? You stepped over the line. <<<<<<<<<< You have no idea how mad you make me. Did you hear what I said at all? People in Leningrad and Moscow would have no meat if they "toed the line". People outside that blessed region would simply starve. Everybody who managed to live had to be guilty. The whole economic system was based on people breaking law or policy. There was no other way to get anything done. By trying to portray US as getting close to USSR you are doing a disservice to your own cause. People may end up thinking: "Well, if it was just a little bit different in USSR, and they did have security - may be it was not such a bad idea after all?" YOu better keep reminding them what they have here, and how little they have lost so far compared to what they have to lose.Yes, fight for every little bit, but do not pretend that you almost lost it all.
Post #33,738 by Ashton 3/28/02 1:52:33 PM Reply	I do see that point. And you are among two (three?) here who have direct experience - which the rest of us lack entirely. Yes, from that angle.. it ISN'T "BAD" here, nor anywhere near-to what you have described. What I think that no one can predict is: how slippery that slope? There are numerous modern instances around the world of revolutionary-change occurring virtually overnight, as a new regime seizes power. The necessity of daily lying in the service of this or that Corporation: prepares us for the kinds of daily 'lying' you describe. We rarely expect to be told anything without large or extra-large spin attached. This is mind conditioning, if there ever were such a thing. As to the major differences between US and 'those others' - for our being the most intricately structured society ever, with interdependencies of mind-boggling complexity (think only if.. trucks could not roll every day?): so are we most vulnerable to all those 'unanticipated consequences' of any truly chaotic development. THEN.. would come the, "we must have lawn'order now at any price" lest cities starve etc. Surely Moscow, Leningrad were a microcosm of how such a catastrophe manifests.. (And yes, I'm somewhat acquainted with the Leningrad siege. That was during war, of course). There's always a danger of exaggeration of perils; still, the ovine acceptance we have seen of the precursors of "tightening up" are, I think - no cause for great optimism either. We cannot know how much further rationing of civil rights would result in (finally) a bunch of 2x4's upside the head of the major offending pols - but thus far, there appears to have been only grumbling among the few. It is the easy acceptance of the ludicrous acronyms like {ugh} the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. bill, and the evident agenda of others all here know about (DMCA etc.) - acceptance of what amounts to further consolidation of Corporate governance via outright purchase of writing their own windfalls: this is what I believe signals the complaisance of the US 'Consumer' to date. Erwache! was on every Nazi guidon flag in those massive processions all have seen: "Awaken". Of course the Nazis meant something quite different.. but the principle holds. Ashton
Post #33,742 by Brandioch 3/28/02 2:08:36 PM Reply	An effective system vs an ineffective system. You have no idea how mad you make me. Did you hear what I said at all? People in Leningrad and Moscow would have no meat if they "toed the line". That's the fact. And I recall Boris getting pissed that his own mother couldn't get medicines that she needed. Even though such were readily available here. People outside that blessed region would simply starve. Everybody who managed to live had to be guilty. The whole economic system was based on people breaking law or policy. There was no other way to get anything done. Well, you were there. But I do find it fascinating that the black market could feed so many people who would have otherwise starved. Just the logistics alone are impressive. People may end up thinking: "Well, if it was just a little bit different in USSR, and they did have security - may be it was not such a bad idea after all?" Yep. There are people who are that stupid. YOu better keep reminding them what they have here, and how little they have lost so far compared to what they have to lose.Yes, fight for every little bit, but do not pretend that you almost lost it all. I don't think I've ever said that they've lost it all. -BUT- We now have LEGALLY detained hundreds (thousands?) of individuals WITHOUT allowing them the basics guaranteed by our laws. No one (outside of the government) knows how many there are or who they are. In Russia, it took a revolution to put the "Communists" into power. Here, you're witnessing a decline from a free state to a totalitarian state. One step at a time.
Post #33,748 by a6l6e6x 3/28/02 2:31:26 PM Reply	Good comment, Arkadiy! From what my father told me, in the 1930's parents had to be careful what they said in front of their children at home. The "little heroes" would get their parents arrested and shipped off to Siberia. Alex "Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
Post #33,041 by Mike 3/21/02 4:51:29 PM Reply	Another thing............. Statistically........(statistically mind you) it is quite certain that the Government will never give a toss where you go, or what you do when you get there. So.........if you are not worried about the terrorists.......why be concerned about GPS? :-) -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,046 by Ashton 3/21/02 4:59:48 PM Reply	Rebuttal: Maxwell's Demon.
Post #33,205 by Mike 3/22/02 8:11:18 PM Reply	Enlighten me and explain the relationship -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,207 by Ashton 3/22/02 8:35:30 PM Reply	Re: Enlighten me and explain the relationship The Demon: approx. it is, the possibility that.. all the air molecules in your room shall happen to converge in one corner and - you'll suffocate. Bloody unlikely - statistically.. possible. Sorta goes with ~ there is NO 100% security EVER, so.. how much will I/you/we give up of palpable 'rights' for: "govt. guarantees of our Comfort & Security\ufffd" ?? IMmerely normally-paranoidO -- virtually all such panaceas as, "universally mandatory GPSs" some day, one must do as the Lawyers advise in any trial: ask, Cui bono? \| Who profits? Whether it's about [oil] "protecting the Rights [oil] of Afghanistanis or Kuwaitis or Saudis to Sew their Daughters into sacks, etc. etc. Who profits? I trust NO GOVERNMENT yet devised, actualized or promised: to NOT be a servant of the highest-financed BIDDER for its intervention. We (Muricans.. but not Only Muricans) are The Sons of Machiavelli. Our daily mercantile-besotted perpetual Interest in [$$] above all else in 'life' - is all the proof I need. YMMV. So.. what would You expect, to lie behind any such proposal as "Mandatory GPS" ? Ashton
Post #33,214 by Silverlock 3/22/02 10:15:21 PM Reply	I think one of Heinlein's characters had it right- Lazarus Long: (IIRC)Any society which requires a national ID is one that is best exited soonest. Isn't that what SS# has morphed into? Why in hell does my fucking dentist need my SS#? boggle The best scale for an experimental design is ten millimeters to the centimeter.
Post #33,218 by Brandioch 3/22/02 10:43:43 PM Reply	I don't believe you have to give that to them. Unfortunately, it has become the de facto universal ID. No two are identical so if you arrange your files by SSN, you'll never have conflicts. But it is ONLY to be used to validate your Social Security payments/claims. So, you COULD tell your dentist that you don't want to divulge that information.
Post #33,220 by Mike 3/22/02 10:49:53 PM Reply	Interestingly California has recently enacted... legislation requiring that SSN be supressed from documentation when possible (The Theft Of Identify Act or something like that......too lazy to Google it right now). I suppose you could criticise SSN for being both a) a mechanism to identify us so that we can then be tracked and monitored for all things which make us "special" in the eyes of govt/business. b) the way in which we lose our individual identities.....we are all distilled down to a number....which is the key in a table somewhere to a row of flags all about "us" (a row of flags which will surely one day contain our entire DNA sequence). Clerk: "SSN please.........ahhhhh I see you have the gene which makes you predisposed to getting yeast infections.....have you considered buying additional life insurance?" When I first came to the States I went to the local govt office to get an SSN number so that I could pay taxes. They gave me some number out of a big book they were keeping under the kitchen sink. I swear if I had said "can I take a few spares...just in case?" they would have given them to me. For several days I was wearing my new SSN number with pride. For some odd reason it felt "special" to have an American SSN number. Can't believe how dopey that sounds now on reflection. I guess I had low expectations from life back then. "Wow....my very own SSN....really? Are you sure? This is such an honor........." -- William Shatner's Trousers --
Post #33,222 by wharris2 3/23/02 3:06:44 AM Reply	Technically You don't have to give your SSN to your dentist, or your doctor, or your driver's license bureau. But it sure is hell trying to get them to accept that. I suppose you could sue them if they refused you service if you didn't give it to them, but geez, think of the costs of a lawyer and what you'd actually gain. www.overlawyered.com is a favorite site of mine, but in this case maybe we're underlawyered? "I didn't know you could drive to Europe." -- An eavesdropper, piping in when he overheard a conversation about someone who had driven to Montreal.
Post #33,259 by a6l6e6x 3/23/02 7:55:26 PM Reply	Re: Why your dentist wants your SSN. Of course he wants a unique key for you in his patient data base - too many John Smiths. And, this key has the additional benefit in being useful in other data bases here and there. He may want to validate some of the personal information you have provided. He may check your medical records with other health providers. He can check your credit before ordering the manufacture of expensive bridgework. He can check to see if you've had a malpractice suit against another doctor. But, you knew that. Alex "Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)

Welcome to IWETHEY!