[dbfreak]

Ain't no such thing as an innocent person.

 

[Grahame]

Good to see the outbreak of reason in this thread.

Security is about trade offs.
Yet we demand absolute security, sometimes oblivious to the consequence of those demands.

A good source of information is the work of Bruce Schneier particularly his book Beyond Fear. You should check out his blog for recent items of interest, or search the archives for classics such as the annual Movie Plot Threat Contest.

The original post/article is a classic example of a False Positive. Given that stupidity is uniformly distributed I'm surprised we don't see more of the same.

As Humans we aren't very good at assessing threats realistically and assigning resources in proportion. Perception is reality in this case.

E.g. how many people die on the road in your (may vary) country each year.
How many of those deaths were preventable.
What has been done to prevent those preventable deaths?

You do wear your seatbelt don 't you?

 

[Uncle Erik]

Aaron, are you familiar with the Fourth Amendment?

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is important. It's the foundation of our freedom and a cornerstone of jurisprudence. I can't give a full analysis here (that takes a few volumes) but I spent three years studying it and its implications and another three years in daily hearings and trials for criminal defense. It may not be fashionable to side with the defense bar these days, but it is hard to understand how important this is until your life and safety are on the line. This was not taken lightly by the Framers, nor should it be thrown out at the first sign of violence. It's too important. I have always treated law enforcement with respect, but they do not need to know everything.

The point is to introduce balance into the government's actions. Warrants have to be presented to an independent judge to make sure the law is complied with. After that, you get an opportunity to review the action in court and confront your accusers. To make sure everything is fair, you get 12 independent people to review the case and make a decision. It's one of the best systems in human history and while not perfect, the common law twists and turns each day to evolve, change with the times and improve itself. That's the foundation of our criminal system.

So, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide. Right?

Mind if you tell me your Social Security number? How about your grades? Credit score? Driver's license number? Medical records? A love letter from your girlfriend?

If you don't want me to see those things, does that make you a terrorist? Of course not. That's just simple privacy.

How about if you had a business making widgets. And you had a new design that should grab 60% of the widget market. You would want to keep that private, right? That doesn't make you a terrorist, either.

Or maybe like my cousin, who sold a rare record a few years back. Someone came out, met him at the airport, gave him $25k cash (!), and quietly flew the record to a collector back east. They wanted to keep that quiet and private. They didn't do anything wrong, did they?

There's a lot to be said for privacy. If you want it, you're not a criminal. There are many, many personal things that law enforcement does not need to know. Even if they did know them, it wouldn't make us any safer.

Giving up privacy, and the right to unreasonable searches and seizures, does not make us safer. You can't monitor everything and everyone.

Also, what's wrong with giving rights to the accused and ensure that law enforcement operates in a clean, open, accountable, and honorable way? The guilty still get convicted. The system doesn't let people off just because they have rights. What I find disturbing is that it is possible to give terrorists fair, open and clean trials. We do it to murderers, thieves and rapists every day. Terrorists aren't much different. What you do is try them, convict them and put them away. I don't have any problem with convictions and doing time. I have no problem with convicted terrorists going to prison. It's just that everyone has to be treated fairly and equally under the law.

 

[wnmnkh]

Grahame, thank you for mentioning a very interesting book.

 

[strid3r]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You make good points, as always. But here's the thing: I don't see how interrogating everybody before a flight violates civil rights. The first line of defense on an airplane is obviously hiring trustworthy pilots, and then to have a secured cockpit. Plus, searching every bag thoroughly does not violate anyone's rights. If there's a bomb in somebody's bag, I want to know. I read in the WSJ a couple years back that the US has thwarted several similar plane attacks since the initial attack (of course not at the airport). As for civil rights, it's much better to treat everybody with equal suspicion. It makes the US a less desirable place to live when we treat certain groups of people with more suspicion. Talk about breeding racism, which is what we have done in the past seven years. This is what you are referring to, right? I would not mind being searched thoroughly if it protected civil rights of others.

Taking away privacy is not the best way to increase security. Let's just say that airlines do interrogate everyone before a flight. What is the ratio of actual terrorists to everyone else? What happens when you judge an innocent person to be suspicious and hold them? (Bound to happen btw). There are much better ways to increase security than to give up your privacy. Like others have said, security is all about trade-offs.

Beyond Fear is a great book btw.

 

[Grahame]

More on the subject of Security Theater.

Given Fear of the form Oooh, I'm afraid, make it go away. One solution is to remove the threat. Another is to make you feel safer.

Can you guess which form Security Theater takes?

Bruce comments about this in The Feeling and Reality of Security

 

[RYCeT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You make good points, as always. But here's the thing: I don't see how interrogating everybody before a flight violates civil rights. The first line of defense on an airplane is obviously hiring trustworthy pilots, and then to have a secured cockpit. Plus, searching every bag thoroughly does not violate anyone's rights. If there's a bomb in somebody's bag, I want to know. I read in the WSJ a couple years back that the US has thwarted several similar plane attacks since the initial attack (of course not at the airport).

No, Interrogating everyone is a waste of time. 9/11 is successful because of element of suprise. All previous 9/11 hijacking result for demand of money, not blowing up planes to buildings. With secure cockpit and no element of suprise, there won't be another 9/11 like attack. Check bags for bomb, that's what TSA supposed to do, yet they failed big time but they are so good at confiscating toothpaste, annoying passengers and abusing our rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for civil rights, it's much better to treat everybody with equal suspicion. It makes the US a less desirable place to live when we treat certain groups of people with more suspicion. Talk about breeding racism, which is what we have done in the past seven years. This is what you are referring to, right? I would not mind being searched thoroughly if it protected civil rights of others.

NO, use common sense, otherwise this is what we have now, TSA abusing Elders, infants, parents and honest passengers. Check their bags for bombs, period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Remember how everybody was up in arms about wiretapping without warrants? People said their civil rights were being violated because the government was spying on them. Well, my response to those people was "Are you a terrorist? Do you know any terrorists? No; then you have nothing to hide." This is exactly what Ben Franklin warned against. But from what I understand, we have not "unlawfully" spied on many people, and most of those people have direct ties to terrorists in other countries. If the government were spying on great numbers of people without reason, without a warrant, that would be a large scale violation of civil rights. Consider that the President has the power to make executive orders in dire times (think Lincoln, FDR), and then re-frame your opinion on wire-tapping of terrorist sympathizers. [REST DELETED... too political]

You have nothing to hide, it is a flawed arguments, Uncle Erick has provided good reasons for it. Another example, Customs are checking your laptop's content to catch pedophiles. Well, it's a honorable goal but if they can't provide suspicion or proof that I am a pedophile, my laptop's content is none of their business. This is a fishing expedition. From thousands flying everyday, How many % of travelers are actually a pedophile? Think common sense, think cost and benefits. Catching 1-2 pedophiles but kicking thousands of innocent's rights in the process does not make any sense. Patriot act's goal is to spy for people without reason, without warrants, they claimed it all for security and play common people's fear to justify it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I tend to apply your logic in daily life. For example, while my parents are paranoid about keeping the doors locked, I tell them that if somebody wanted to break in, they would regardless. Perhaps all we are doing is making the terrorists more resourceful, but I think it's better to respond in the moment, or else any attack would be seen as a result of lax effort, and would be political suicide for the country.

Wrong, This is why we have war on shoes, war on liquids. Because of TSA higher up lack of common sense, we have TSA who are so good at confiscating toothpaste yet failed big time in detecting bombs. Do you really think we are safer because we provide id, take off our shoes and have our toothpaste confiscated

So, by the time we have an underwear bomber, TSA should make another rule and told us to xray our underwear separately.

This is posted on TSA Blog regarding the new rule on providing id for travel
Quote:

Scenario #1 – You forgot your ID at home. You will go through additional screening and be permitted to travel. Scenario #2 – You openly state you are not going to cooperate and show us your ID. You will not be processed through our checkpoint and you will not fly.

This is another attempt by TSA to abuse our rights. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have stated that one does not need id to fly domestically. So by enforcing that rights, as innocent we can't fly but a terrorist can fly by saying they forgot their id at home. It is none of government's business where I go every day domestically. We are not a police state. Even police need a sufficient suspicion to ask for ID. Providing a valid ID does not make you safe. Even a National ID pushed by DHS is flawed. A terorrist can easily bypassed that measure by providing a valid passport for travel.
I found this article Flying without an ID is coming to a controversial end - CNN.com

 

[aaron313]

Phew... now to clear up several misunderstandings.

First things first, we need to provide incentives for more competent people to start working security for the airlines (good luck with that one). Second, I never suggested that we should abandon the right to privacy. Not in the slightest. Don't think that because I believe the government should be allowed to wiretap suspected terrorist sympathizers means I'm okay with them searching my laptop for pedophilia without a warrant. There's a huge difference between the two issues, considering that the former concerns national security. I don't believe the government has used that right, that they invented for themselves in a time of WAR, too frequently; I believe the number of uses was in the low hundreds, if that. And these were people who were suspected of making contact with terrorists outside the country. If the gov. were to wait to get a warrant, valuable information could be lost. This isn't about some common drug bust, or a person looking for underage sex: this is national security. At any rate, I like the summary of the fourth amendment, but yes, I am quite familiar with it. (However, if you want to talk about the right to privacy, you need to mention Mapp v. Ohio, too)

Consider what FDR did in response to Pearl Harbor. That is so much more extreme than what what the Patriot Act accomplished.

Back to the airlines, how do you think we thwarted terrorist attacks after 9/11? Well, it was not by interrogating people boarding airplanes, it was by monitoring terrorist cells. Look, I'm not saying we would ever get to the point of interrogating everyone, because it is horribly inefficient, but rather that it's unfair to racially profile. That was what I was trying to say. Interrogating everybody probably would be a last resort. But speaking in terms of facts, el Al interrogates everybody, and they have not had an incident. That is just a fact, take it or leave.

What I said before:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 Quote: Originally Posted by RYCeT Well, I haven't however many frequent flyers posting in Flyertalk much prefer el Al Security than the theatre security we have here under TSA. The most reason mentions, they are much more profesional unlike our 'goons' which we have here which threat are always be "Do you want to fly today?" 2nd reason, the el Al actually conduct security, not the theatric, war on liquids we have. Exactly! I would gladly show up three hours early (or more) to be subjected to el Al security before every flight, for the reasons you stated. The el Al team grills every passenger before the flight, and they racial-profile to the extreme. I heard that the predefined risk factors go as follows: Lowest risk - Israeli Jew, non Arab Medium risk - Non Israeli non Arab Highest risk - Arab (automatically interrogated privately) However, it should be noted that every passenger is grilled before the flight, not just Arabs. If it were up to me, every passenger would be interrogated individually, regardless of race or country of origin. As the shoe-bomber reminded us, anybody can become an Al-Qaeda operative, so it's unfair to single out a certain race. I'm suspicious of everybody when I fly.

It should be obvious that I was trying to say we need el-Al type security. When did I ever say we should have the same goons we currently have, running el-Al type measures? Never. The bolded text reflects that if were were to take el-Al measures, Americans would not be happy with the racial profiling aspect. I was trying to praise their system and simultaneously suggest how we could tweak it to make it more "American." Never suggested we should have the "war on liquids" or "war on shoes." Never. Please don't incorrectly read into what I was saying.

Quote:

You have nothing to hide, it is a flawed arguments, Uncle Erick has provided good reasons for it... Patriot act's goal is to spy for people without reason, without warrants, they claimed it all for security and play common people's fear to justify it.

It's pretty clear from what I wrote that I no longer use that argument. I then went on to say that if the government were doing it large scale, then it would be a huge problem. But they DON'T do it on a large scale. They use it sparingly. The point is that the uproar and fears of spying on common people were not grounded in fact. But you are right in saying that our fears of terrorism allowed the act to be passed easily. Also, the bolded text reflects on error on your part. The purpose is to spy WITH reason, without warrants, etc. If the government were spying without reason, that would be... pretty stupid indeed.

To summarize: I never suggested we scale up our security efforts, but rather that we should transform it to meet the el-Al standard. Somehow people thought I loved our current security measures so much that I wanted more of the same. Never said that.

Next, I never said that we should let the Government run over our civil liberties. My opinion on the Patriot Act is that in times of war, the government is justified in bending the law to spy on terrorist sympathizers. If they were spying on people for any other reason, that would be wrong. If they discovered the person they spied on without a warrant were a pedophile, then it would be wrong to use that evidence. No court would uphold evidence obtained in that matter, as Mapp v. Ohio would dictate. People, even terrorists, have the right to due process. If we were to obtain credible information about terrorist activities without a warrant, that would be fine by me, because it would save lives. Actually prosecuting the suspect might play out differently. This would be a rare occurrence, though. Very, very, very rare.

 

[ast]

Life is full of compromises, airline security is one of them -- a very annoying one. On one side, "security", while on the other, "convenience, efficiency, cost". When something like 9/11 happens, "security" always has the upper hand, rightfully most of time I guess.

But with a kind of unlimited power and authority of execution, these security procedures can easily run out of control -- wasteful, abusive, noneffective eventually, etc.

 

[craiglester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Texas Society of Anesthesiologists? Why would I have beef with them?

Not a great argument in the defense of the TSA there.. Does anyone think they're doing a good job... anyone?

Trouble with the gradual erosion of rights is you never get them back.. one at a time.. that's how they do it...

 

[RYCeT]

aaron313, your arguments are flawed, you said you believe in privacy but you also said if they are a 'suspected' terrorist sympatizer, well go to hell with their rights. There's no one way or the other. It's not okay whether it happen on small scale or large scale, who determine that line, you, me or the government. You will change your opinion when you are the one who are a 'suspected' terrorist, like what happen to the reporter. Your arguments feel when if it's not happen to me, they can do whatever they want, if it happened to me that's when we going to have problems. If this is your attitude, do you really think other people with your same attitude will care if that unfortunately happen to you.
Never suggested war on liquids, war on shoes, this is your statement
Quote:

but I think it's better to respond in the moment, or else any attack would be seen as a result of lax effort, and would be political suicide for the country.

War on liquids, war on shoes are result of that respond in the moment.

 

[RYCeT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by craiglester /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not a great argument in the defense of the TSA there.. Does anyone think they're doing a good job... anyone? Trouble with the gradual erosion of rights is you never get them back.. one at a time.. that's how they do it...

Well, I think my view of TSA are quite obvious. TSA = Thousands Standing Around.

 

[aaron313]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT /img/forum/go_quote.gif aaron313, your arguments are flawed, you said you believe in privacy but you also said if they are a 'suspected' terrorist sympatizer, well go to hell with their rights. There's no one way or the other. It's not okay whether it happen on small scale or large scale, who determine that line, you, me or the government.

If my arguments are flawed, then so are the arguments of Congress and the Executive Branch! Take it up with them, then. I am simply agreeing with a law.
Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT You will change your opinion when you are the one who are a 'suspected' terrorist, like what happen to the reporter. Your arguments feel when if it's not happen to me, they can do whatever they want, if it happened to me that's when we going to have problems. If this is your attitude, do you really think other people with your same attitude will care if that unfortunately happen to you.

Actually, I would not change my opinion, because the issue would be cleared up quickly. If I were acting suspiciously to other people on a plane, I would want someone to report me. At least then I would know people are being vigilant. I mean, I think that the woman was right to report the reporter, because she was clearly unaware of what Airborne was. Plus, the matter was resolved quickly. You are misreading my attitude, because I never gave any suggestion that that would be the case. I have no damn clue where you came up with that.
Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT Never suggested war on liquids, war on shoes, this is your statement Quote: Originally Posted by aaron313 but I think it's better to respond in the moment, or else any attack would be seen as a result of lax effort, and would be political suicide for the country. War on liquids, war on shoes are result of that respond in the moment.

As for "acting in the moment," if we had implemented el-Al type security immediately after 9/11, we would not have had to implement the other "wars on..." Got it? It becomes a moot point. Think about it. If I already disagree with the way we currently undertake airplane security measures, and made a valid suggestion (that you earlier agreed with) to revamp the flawed system, why would anything else I say suggest that I am a supporter of other measures taken by the same people whose previous efforts I disparaged?

 

[aaron313]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I think my view of TSA are quite obvious. TSA = Thousands Standing Around.

Heh, that's about as accurate a description as I've heard.

 

[wnmnkh]

The point of people against your opinion is that such measure is utterly useless, worthless, waste of time AND consumes some of our basic rights, whether racial-biased el-Al type or ridiculous TSA type.