Post #45,999
7/18/02 5:15:01 PM
|
Get over it!
As anyone who has read more than two messages I've written here should know, I have very little sympathy and quite a few anti-Democratic party tendencies. (I've got my problems with the Republicans; I'm not registered with either party, but I'm not quite so far along as to register as a Libertarian or one of the other fringe parties.)
I forget where I read it (Walter Williams or some columnist like that), but Gore was searched twice at airports during the weeks around July 4. Some other congresscritters have themselves been searched upwards of a dozen times.
This has to go under the "What the hell are they thinking"? category. Do they expect a former Vice President with delusions of Presidential asperations to bomb or hijack an airplane? Do they expect a Congressman in good standing to bomb the White House? There's a time to be non-discriminatory and color and race blind, and there's a time to say, "Hmmmmmm. Do we search a former American-born Vice President, or do we search and do background checks on this Islamic crop dusting student who may or may not be in the country illegally with a fake visa or a fake ID?"
There's a time to be "fair", and there's a time to be sensible. Amongst these and other rank so-called security stupidities, there is no room for political correctness or fairness or other bullshit; life isn't fair, someone searched because they're an Arabian immigrant or student had better get used to it.
Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
|
Post #46,001
7/18/02 5:21:41 PM
|
Security Checks
As long as they check everyone equally, there should be no problems there. If even ex-Vice Presidents are searched, then there are no diplomatic immunities. But if the Ex-VP is searched and a Middle-East visitor next to him is not, then something screwy is going on.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #46,004
7/18/02 5:30:01 PM
|
It's simple: those paid to 'do security'
to 'search people' and stuff - are not Trusted (by those paid to Hire such) to even possess Common Sense\ufffd .. surely a vanishing commodity anyway.. in a an era of increasing dumbth (?)
Thus they revert to Bureaucracy 101F The Remedial Course (8000 BCE ---> 2002 ACE), the willful application of Boolean logic, no matter WHAT the eyes see, the brain deduces.. yada yada.
We are ALL now experiencing what Anyone who ever was so destitute as to need Official help.. must abide on a daily basis: including having their refrigerator examined (putatively to see if it works? Naah - to preach how often it ought to be Cleaned. With smarmy accompaniment which only a petty-satrap can Do So Well)
HTH,
Ashton
|
Post #46,022
7/18/02 7:14:27 PM
|
Those paid to 'do security"
make about $5USD or $7USD an hour, how much common sense do you think they have to get a job like that? Even Burger Flippers get paid that much. Still, more than I make per hour right now, as I am unemployed. If they had common sense, they'd have had a college degree or got trained to work at a higher paying job. Even Helpdesk people get paid $9USD or more to answer phones and give half-*ssed answers to user's questions.
I am free now, to choose my own destiny.
|
Post #46,008
7/18/02 5:48:05 PM
|
I'll disagree.
Tactics.
If you're letting the white girls through because you're focusing on the swarthy males (ages 18 - 35), you got a problem.
This means that the tactics will change to get the white girls to become the mules.
The idea is to have the security implemented in such a way that no matter WHO is the mule or terrorist, the threat is reduced/removed.
That they're searching Gore is pure PR. There is no way that he could trip any meaningful triggers.
Okay, scenario. Terrorist arrives in the US. Assumed name. Gets a white girlfriend. Helps her pack for their vacation on the other side of the nation.
At the airport, he tells her to pretend to not be with him as he's likely to be harassed by The Man. Just play cool and ignore the indignities the heap upon him.
She agrees and they search him and find nothing. Because the weapons are in her bags which he will retrieve once they're in the air.
Tactics.
Profiling is good when used correctly.
Profiling is worse than useless when used incorrectly.
Focusing on mid-eastern males because the last terrorists were mid-eastern males is an example of bad profiling.
And this is just one of the ways that bad proceedures can be used against you.
|
Post #46,012
7/18/02 6:05:39 PM
|
Yours is better. I retract.
|
Post #46,016
7/18/02 6:50:24 PM
|
Of course you'll disagree.
We disagree on everything.
Now, I'm not saying profile *just* because they're Arabic. There are lots of suspicious behaviors. Richard Reid, so-called "Shoe Bomber", a British citizen with British papers, perhaps not obviously Arabic but certainly a bit odd-looking with a "druggie" look (one account says, and the pictures I've seen agree with that assessment), raised red flags when he tried to board a flight from Paris to Miami - so much so that he missed his plane while being interrogated.
Perhaps the white chick with the Arab boyfriend might not raise the same flags, but her carry-on baggage has to go through the same machines. (Which raises other questions, such as Cincinnati's 57% failure rate to spot OBVIOUS guns going through the X-ray machine, but that's almost beside the point. The people at those X-ray machines are mininimum-wage people, commonly non-citizen immigrants, some here illegally, some of who likely wouldn't care if the entire Western seaboard fell into the sea, some of whom, so it appears, don't even bother to check if the X-ray machine is on.)
Current airline security is *still* a joke. Bomb-sniffing equipment for checked luggage has been installed in, what is it, .01% of the airports in the U.S.? Air marshals are few and far between and there are people who argue against giving the pilots *anything* more than the axe they have in the cockpit to help protect themselves.
Leaving your security in the hands of the government (or the airlines, or private corporations) has proven almost worse than uesless. Richard Reid was brought down by fellow passengers, not security screeners, but he's one fellow who could have and should have been profiled out the wazoo.
Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
|
Post #46,037
7/18/02 9:53:12 PM
|
Pretty much. :)
Well, if we always agreed life would be boring. Now, I'm not saying profile *just* because they're Arabic. Okay, but it seemed that you did. Okay, Arabic, in the US and trying to board a plane. Is that detailed enough. :) There are lots of suspicious behaviors. Richard Reid, so-called "Shoe Bomber", a British citizen with British papers, perhaps not obviously Arabic but certainly a bit odd-looking with a "druggie" look (one account says, and the pictures I've seen agree with that assessment), raised red flags when he tried to board a flight from Paris to Miami - so much so that he missed his plane while being interrogated. You've never seen me. I've never been interrogated, but I've been felt up a few times. So, you buy all the terrorists nice suits and such. The problem is focusing on a "look". All it takes to crack that system is changing your look. Perhaps the white chick with the Arab boyfriend might not raise the same flags, but her carry-on baggage has to go through the same machines. Yep. And if we were talking machines, it would be harder. But we're talking about people manning the machines. Then it becomes easy to get stuff through, as you've noted. Current airline security is *still* a joke. And it will always be a joke. Until we grow up and realize that what a person looks like is NOT a reliable indicator of whether s/he is a terrorist or not. In your previous post, you talked about searching all the Arabs coming through the airport. This is a problem because it conditions the security personnel to focus on the Arabic look. The security personnel are human and will make mistakes. To crack them, you send a series of false positives through. Meanwhile, you're slipping your weapons through on the least Arabic looking mule you can find. Richard Reid was brought down by fellow passengers, not security screeners, but he's one fellow who could have and should have been profiled out the wazoo. Exactly. When you ONLY try to secure the access points, you have problems. Each flight should have one or two ARMED and UNIFORMED security personnel next to the cockpit. Facing the passengers. Defense in depth. Check for weapons before allowing them on the plane. Our gun them while on the plane. Lock the cockpit from the inside. Even this won't prevent 100% of the attacks. A terrorist can still spend years working his/her way up to commercial pilot and then crash into a building. But this will reduce the threat. Make it as difficult as possible. Make it as time consuming as possible.
|
Post #46,193
7/20/02 12:49:55 AM
|
Further disagreements
Okay, but it seemed that you did. Okay, Arabic, in the US and trying to board a plane. Given that the 19 September 11 bombers were Arabic (18 of them Saudi Arabs, in fact, some with perfectly valid visas, some with forged ID and papers) it doesn't strike me as too terribly bad to give them a bit more scrutiny than the 80-year old combat veteran who had shot down 26 Japanese planes during the Battle of Midway. And any supposed screener who can't tell the difference between the Medal of Honor and a weapon should be fired on the spot. Those in the FAA who issued "confiscate nail files and fingernail clippers" rules should also be fired. ASAP. (Not that the bureaucracy is going to let that happen.) This is a problem because it conditions the security personnel to focus on the Arabic look. That's a bureaucratic answer to the problem, which is not what we need. The trouble is, damn bureaucrats need to make rules and Oh My God Forbid that they be unfair to a particular racial group no matter how weird their behavior might have been. We need to hire, and pay for, intelligent screeners. Racial makeup *should* be taken into account. Detaining a 10-year naturalized Arabic US citizen just for his racial makeup is dead wrong. But totally ignoring race ignores the facts: 18 Saudi Arabs, members of a fanatical faction of Islam, killed upwards of 3000 people (it's a miracle they didn't kill more) and inflicted billions of dollars of damage. Ignore that and you're burying your head in the sand. (side note: the U.S. is doing this, burying its head in the sands of Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi support and funding of terrorist groups. We've got to issue an ultimatium. You give one more dollar to Osama binLaden or whoever his successor is, and we'll replace you and your government with something else. Whatever it takes.) The security personnel are human and will make mistakes. To crack them, you send a series of false positives through. Meanwhile, you're slipping your weapons through on the least Arabic looking mule you can find. I'm not sure you can really call the security personnel currently on duty (still pretty much the same minimum wage people who were on duty September 11, although there have been *some* firings and investigations) human. Every other day it seems you hear of some other abuse; patting down in great detail curvacious blondes while ignoring the wild-eyed unshaven guys who would meet any profile you might come up with. They've issued new regulations about that (female examines females, f'r instance) but I haven't heard much about disciplinary actions against those jerks who got their jollies out of searching women who had a spec of metal in their uplift bra. Exactly. When you ONLY try to secure the access points, you have problems. Each flight should have one or two ARMED and UNIFORMED security personnel next to the cockpit. Facing the passengers. Seriously disagree with this. A uniform means the security guy (air marshal or whatever) is an obvious first target a terrorist will plan to take out. Unless the marshal is holding his gun in his hand at all times, some terrorist can walk down the aisle to the first class section (or wherever the marshal is sitting) and, if prepared (as he would be), likely draw and shoot faster than the marshal can get his gun out of his holster. And if there are four potential martyrs on the plane, the marshal(s) are unlikely to be able to outgun them. Air marshals or armed security on every flight, I'll go for that. Just don't make them obvious targets. Even this won't prevent 100% of the attacks. A terrorist can still spend years working his/her way up to commercial pilot and then crash into a building. Or crash an aircraft into the ocean, as happened a year or two ago (and, if I remember correctly, Egypt still denies that it was a suicide.)
|
Post #46,254
7/20/02 11:41:55 PM
|
As always.
Again with the racial profiling. Yes, the hijackers were Saudi.
But you cannot focus on EVERYTHING.
Focusing means to pay more attention to one thing than to other things.
If you develop a rules system that focuses on arabians, then, by definition, you are paying less attention to other passengers.
Which is why I gave the example of using the white girlfriend to get the weapons through security.
As for a terrorist being able to out draw a uniformed security guard, that depends upon the terrorist having a hand gun and if the terrorist has managed to get a hand gun onto the plane, there's nothing any sky marshal is going to be able to do to stop them.
My scenario relies upon the guards being better armed than the hijackers. If we can't achieve that, then we need to seal the cockpit from the rest of the plane.
|
Post #46,270
7/21/02 5:23:57 AM
|
Re: Agree re the focus - IRA understood this well ...
As did the 1970 palestinian terrorists.
Start up a romance with a lost soul - fill her bags with the stash (guns, drugs, whatever), provide an excuse for why she has to travel or start to, travel alone. Defeat the screening who are looking for an Irish Male Terrorist or a Palestinian male Terrorist.
This has to be a no-brainer.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #46,293
7/21/02 2:04:58 PM
|
El Al
Israel has not had a single problem with hijackings since the 1970's. They profile extensively. They have an equivalent of air marshals on every flight.
The U.S. could learn a lot from them, if we weren't so damn politically correct.
Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
|
Post #46,303
7/21/02 4:43:49 PM
|
Capacity.
Israel also runs fewer than 1/1,000 of the flights the US runs each day.
Israel has multiple check points along the roads leading to the airport.
Think about what would happen if the US decided to block all traffic 2 miles from each airport and do a car by car check for suspicious individuals.
And that does not even include UPS and Airborne and FedEx aircraft.
|
Post #46,264
7/21/02 2:40:05 AM
|
%100 of little Timmy McV wasn't Arabic
And was a vet, no less.
---- United we stand
Divided we dominate the planet without really trying
|
Post #46,059
7/19/02 8:59:57 AM
|
that was how the lockerbie plane blew
Swarthy male using white female. You want good airport security? Hire pit bosses from Vegas and professional hard entry thieves from the east coast. Either can spot a con or a mark in a second and both can tell a sleazoid with bad intentions from an identical looking college dude on his way to a wedding. thanx, bill
."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
|
Post #46,106
7/19/02 4:07:48 PM
|
Exactamente! We don't *want* to face things ever.
There is a combination of 'training' but also instinct, art and above all Interest. That plus an ability to actually pay Attention: to small AND large things. In peoples 'presentation of self', their expressions and much else.
Few possess all; some possess assortments of these qualities for being an actually Good Observer\ufffd. Most of us are way-low on the scale of each. You PAY for {another dead TLA-killed word} excellence.
Hiring Min-wage$ to do Everything is just.. Sooo.. Murican. Why we have ignorant PHBs in charge of Anything! - even if, as is often the case - our lives depended upon their performance.
(Remember NT on the Warships? Dead-in-water.. but only occasionally..)
..for YAN reboot or RRR. ..for tracking down that new Secure-DLL-oxymoron.
I think.. we'd cheerfully put everyone in lockstep before.. going to the root of any of our large problems. Warz, Drugs, medicine, education, Fundamentalist-assassins, Corrupt governance in now All Three Branches...
Introspection is NOT US. <<< $$ R US.
Ashton
|
Post #46,265
7/21/02 2:42:27 AM
|
Can't we just put better procedures in place?
And punish the min-wage drones severely if they try to think?
It works for everything else, doesn't it?
---- United we stand
Divided we dominate the planet without really trying
|
Post #46,397
7/22/02 2:09:07 PM
|
You see, Ash, that's the problem!
Few possess all; some possess assortments of these qualities for being an actually Good Observer\ufffd. Most of us are way-low on the scale of each. You PAY for {another dead TLA-killed word} excellence. [emphasis added] That's the problem. Skill, and its twin brother, excellence, are the enemy of Management. Skill COSTS. MONEY. And it is not as easy to find. Management wants nothing but interchangeable parts. "Give me a hard time, and yer outta here." "Your kind is a dime-a-dozen." (Corollary: " My kind is irreplaceable!") So, instead of hiring skill, Management hires least-common-denominator volume. And we get...what we got!
jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
|
Post #46,464
7/23/02 12:14:18 AM
|
And it kinda makes discussion superfluous.
That is, I cannot imagine Anything capable of overriding this predisposition - it may even be in the water. Logic? reason? ed-ja-aky-shun?... nahhh.
It appears that once Management whispers yer one of Us now.. better upgrade that Suit.. - any prior smarts drains to just below the spleen, as the Remake begins.
Ashton
|
Post #46,072
7/19/02 10:00:10 AM
|
Are you just NOW getting to this?
Gore was searched MONTHS ago. This has to go under the "What the hell are they thinking"? category. Do they expect a former Vice President with delusions of Presidential asperations to bomb or hijack an airplane? Do they expect a Congressman in good standing to bomb the White House? There's a time to be non-discriminatory and color and race blind, and there's a time to say, "Hmmmmmm. Do we search a former American-born Vice President, or do we search and do background checks on this Islamic crop dusting student who may or may not be in the country illegally with a fake visa or a fake ID?"
Irregardless of whether or not they our elected officials (or former elected officials) they should be expected to go through the same things that we have to. Why do you want to give someone a free pass because they were elected to a job? I'll agree with you that the security measure are ineffective, but everyone knew that they would be ineffective to begin with. (The hijackers didn't use guns, they used knives and no metal detecter in the world is going to detect a fiberglass knife.) The sole purpose of the security measures was to reassure the public that the government was doing 'something' to prevent planes from being hijacked/bombed. There's no greater mechanism to prove to people that anyone/everyone is going to be searched than to start at the top (ie: elected officials).
|
Post #46,082
7/19/02 12:37:19 PM
|
"Irregardless" is not a word. It's "Regardless".
Look Ashton! More language murder ;-)
|
Post #46,086
7/19/02 1:09:00 PM
|
Oooh! A nit war! :-) It's in dictionary.com
[link|http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=irregardless|Irregardless].
Actually, I agree that it's poor form. But so is "aint" and that'll never be purged.
As long as people don't start writing the way many pundits talk it'll be ok, IMO.
"The point is is that ..."
Aargh!
:-)
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #46,125
7/19/02 5:40:36 PM
|
Ya know...
I twitched when I wrote that, but I figured - it's how I speak, and heck...no one will nitpick my on the choice of words here.
|
Post #46,429
7/22/02 7:59:44 PM
|
Huh?
I can understand how you wouldn't think I would nit-pick you on this, but with Ashton around, constantly railing against "language murder"? ;-)
|
Post #46,465
7/23/02 12:23:23 AM
|
That ain't 'murder', just a bit of battery.
Murder Is:
Billy *ever* using the word innovation. "Microsoft Works" - no mere oxymoron, that. Dubya trying to philosophize with Any words. Compassionate Conservative. 2/3 of most Every Ad - but especially when selling 'social fear' drugs on Tee Vee - with dramatization. "We Hate the Sin but We Love the Sinner"
yada yada
So don't get all inflammable about it, stay couth!
Ashton
|
Post #46,194
7/20/02 12:51:17 AM
|
Burns my butt also, sir Moffit
Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
|
Post #46,083
7/19/02 12:38:32 PM
|
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
1) Free 2) Secure
Pick neither 1 nor 2, only 1 or 2, but not both.
|
Post #46,092
7/19/02 1:42:04 PM
|
There is no 100% secure.
So how much freedom are people willing to surrender for the illusion of security?
|
Post #46,103
7/19/02 3:51:43 PM
|
Obviously.. and thus far - Whole Const. Amendments-full..
|
Post #46,154
7/19/02 8:03:40 PM
|
Another exchange.
Pick 1:
1. Free 2. Private
Yeah, I'm beginning to belive this. Mentioned a book in the reviews section called "The Transparent Society," and I'm beginning to believe that Brin was right. I can't see a good way to maintain privacy and still maintain our freedoms.
Basic argument goes like this - if we have strong laws to protect our privacy, then the powerful will find ways around those laws (power can be used to exert influence to avoid laws - C.F. Enron, et. al.) and use that information to control us. In fact, we're already falling into that trap, what with massive personal information databases, cable boxes that track what we're watching, etc.
So we end up in a situation where the Powerful know a lot about us, but we don't know much about the powerful.
Brin suggests going the other direction - repealing ALL the privacy laws. For EVERYBODY. No closed door sessions, and you can't sue somebody for sticking a bug on your wall, or walking a mechanical cockroach into their room with a camera, etc.
Now, you're thinking "Hey, what about stalkers/kidnappers/blackmailers?" Well, that's one of the nice things about this - there's a heck of a lot more people who AREN'T that type than there are - and if everybody's watching everybody else, it's going to be a lot easier to catch those people than it is today.
At least that the general idea. It's all dependent on cheap monitoring technology becoming availible - but that's what R 'n D is for...
There are 10 types of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
|
Post #46,157
7/19/02 9:18:30 PM
|
In that world
the sysadmins and hackers are king. Cant remember the name of the book "Silver Surfer?" about just that. Everything is electronic so who you are depends on your ability to move around the systems incognito. You could always opt out by moving to Cash Nevada where only currency could be used and you could be anyone or anything no questions asked. thanks, Bill
."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
|