Will you use it?

[Computer Repair Vancouver]

Obviously this is a complicated matter and people will continue to disagree. However, I believe we must be careful when it comes to the use of the terms "terrorist" and "terrorist threat". As we have seen throughout history, many reasons have been given to subject a particular citizenry to particular conditions.

Just looking at US foreign policy throughout the decades - it appears that many within the ranks of power could be considered "terrorists" according to the actions they took. Yet, this is information is not widely disseminated. It seems as if the definition of "terrorist threat" is often dependent upon what we are looking at (or focusing on), at a particular moment in time.



In regards to Canada - the idealized view is that we are much better. In practice, it is not quite this simple.

For example, when the G20 came up here to Canada (Toronto) the police engaged in activities which prevented people from protesting what was going on (furthermore, individuals had to show identification just to be in a certain area of the city). It was later ruled that this was inappropriate. Nonetheless, it occurred.

Additionally, there has been increasing talk by our government of ever-more-severe punishment for criminals as well as a strengthening of our border in regards to "illegal immigrants" - those coming in from boats via the Asian-Pacific area (as opposed to Mexico).


Ultimately, my belief is as follows. If you have large portions of the world who are marginalized (poor, helpless, angry) you are likely to have arguments - some arguments will become violent while others will not. You can build as many prisons as you want, and put in place as many safety measures as possible - however, there will still be that tension and sense of fear.

Whether my belief is true, partially true, partially false, or outright false is, obviously, up for debate. Nonetheless, I believe it is reasonably thought out.

 

[Ccomp5950]

I don't think you read the entire post. I was referring to his post. Personally it's OK with me to screen - scan - touch - talk or anything else they need to do to prevent a terrorist attack.

So anything done to prevent a terrorist attack is justified? Than having any sort of discussion with you is going to prove to be fruitless. You've already discounted the bill of rights in the name of safety.

The terrorist have won.

The measures put in place by the USA are extreme BUT do work and are necessary.

The measures put in place by the TSA for screening passengers do not work, they have never directly stopped a hijacking or terrorist plot. What has stopped terrorists like the shoe bomber and such are passengers willing to subdue the threat instead of being a victim.

I can't speak for parcel delivery, I don't have a stamp on me that says "Fedex" with a from and to marking. 100% scans of checked baggage is not invasive. Scanning for bombs, explosives and such of parcels and baggage is perfectly fine and I don't think you will find anyone here who will disagree with that.

 

[pugsport]

The measures put in place by the TSA for screening passengers do not work, they have never directly stopped a hijacking or terrorist plot. What has stopped terrorists like the shoe bomber and such are passengers willing to subdue the threat instead of being a victim.

Has there been a hijacking since 9/11?

No, so implemented measures have worked.

Has there been a repeat shoe bomber?

No, so implemented measures have worked.

Has there been a repeat of the liquid bomb?

No, so implemented measures have worked.

Has there been a repeat of the underpants bomber?

No, so implemented measures have worked.

Granted, these measures were put in place after each incident occured, but said measures has prevented it happening again, therefore they DO work.

 

[Ccomp5950]

Yes, your bear-patrol is doing a right fine job, how much are you willing to pay for my tiger-repellent rock?

Reference: Simpsons Episode: Much Apu about nothing

 

[pugsport]

Interesting read but that analogy of the rock and tiger does not fit real life, 3 reasons, no history, no background and no facts.
Real life, an event or incident occurs, measures are put in place as a deterrent to prevent same happening again. Has history, has background has facts has results.
You could of course test your analogy, next time you leave your house, open all windows disable your alarm and prop your doors open!
The rock being your house security, the tiger a burglar.

 

[ATTech]

Yes, your bear-patrol is doing a right fine job, how much are you willing to pay for my tiger-repellent rock?

Reference: Simpsons Episode: Much Apu about nothing

How can you say, though, that the bear patrol isn't working if no bears have showed up to test it? At best, it's neither working, nor not working.

 

[Ccomp5950]

Interesting read but that analogy of the rock and tiger does not fit real life, 3 reasons, no history, no background and no facts.
Real life, an event or incident occurs, measures are put in place as a deterrent to prevent same happening again. Has history, has background has facts has results.

Okay, apparently you don't understand the use of fallacy in an argument invalidates your points.

Correlation does not imply Causation.
(nor does it equal causation as you've asserted)

You could of course test your analogy, next time you leave your house, open all windows disable your alarm and prop your doors open!
The rock being your house security, the tiger a burglar.

The terrorist attacks that have occurred all happened after they were cleared by security, the underwear bomber was screened through an airport that had millimeter scanners. So even with the windows closed, alarm on, and my doors locked, the "rock" failed to protect the house. The same would have occurred if the "windows were open, alarm on, and the doors propped open".

If some guy runs in DFW with a liquid bomb shoved up his rectum you will still say "Not TSA's fault, they weren't able to check for that since we don't mandate full cavity searches." Which is what you and anyone who accepts TSA's handling of passengers will say.

If an airline had nothing but a metal detector between me and the plane I would fly that airline. You can get your rectum checked I'll take my chances on 1 in 26,071,429. I'll also buy a lottery ticket on the way because my odds of winning are a hell of a lot better than being blown up.

 

[Ccomp5950]

How can you say, though, that the bear patrol isn't working if no bears have showed up to test it? At best, it's neither working, nor not working.

Honestly I can't, that would be a fallacy either way. I'll be more careful to avoid sounding like that and can see where you would see that.

See my last post "Even with the windows locked, alarm on...", which really is still just a side bar brought on by eric and now pugs whom it appears used to work in shipping at an airport.

Essentially my stance boils down to this: The chances of a terrorist threat are so low, it's unreasonable to do what the TSA is doing with passengers. Which is what Judges have said as well...

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose a reason to conduct a more probing search."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/26/AR2010112604290.html

 

[Ccomp5950]

Looks like EPIC filed suit a bit back and is going to be looked into between now and March.

http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html

 

[pugsport]

I'm not the most articulate person so you lost on that fallacy bit.

The underpants bomber boarded the plane in Amsterdam, at the time body scanners, although in use, were not compulsory in Holland, even for U.S. bound flights. If they did scan him he would have been caught.
The measures in place are not fool proof, but if I understand you correctly you want the "detterent" measures removed. Why make it easy for them?

Terror attacks on your Homeland is a new thing to you guys, here in the UK it used to be common place. Governments and security agencies are duty bound to protect it's citizens and measures have to be put in place, wether we like it or not. The measures do not always work and for some places impossible to police. Targeting nightclubs and busy shopping centers by the IRA was easy, but at least most of the time they gave warnings to the security services so areas could be evacuated.
This new breed of terrorist are, lethal, canny and creative, their success or failure depend on what measures the security services put in place, detterents are designed to make it harder for them to succeed.

 

[Ccomp5950]

I'm not the most articulate person so you lost on that fallacy bit.

The underpants bomber boarded the plane in Amsterdam, at the time body scanners, although in use, were not compulsory in Holland, even for U.S. bound flights. If they did scan him he would have been caught.
The measures in place are not fool proof, but if I understand you correctly you want the "detterent" measures removed. Why make it easy for them?

Terror attacks on your Homeland is a new thing to you guys, here in the UK it used to be common place. Governments and security agencies are duty bound to protect it's citizens and measures have to be put in place, whether we like it or not. The measures do not always work and for some places impossible to police. Targeting nightclubs and busy shopping centers by the IRA was easy, but at least most of the time they gave warnings to the security services so areas could be evacuated.
This new breed of terrorist are, lethal, canny and creative, their success or failure depend on what measures the security services put in place, detterents are designed to make it harder for them to succeed.

Here in the US any protection or action by the government has to be checked against constitutional powers. The TSA being left unchecked has likely over stepped those boundaries. More specifically the 4th amendment. We have a constitution for a reason, it can be changed but the process to do so requires more political action than simply ignoring an amendment exists.

I'm not going to pretend the US has had it as bad as you guys on that side of the pond, but here is a bit of history...

With Nixon we had the PLA hijackings which brought on skymarshalls, didn't stop, so we installed metal detectors, didn't stop hijackings from occuring, than we had box cutters used in 9/11 so we brought in the TSA, didn't stop hijackings. So we started making people take off their shoes, didn't stop hijackings, so we started making people leave liquids off the plane, didn't stop hijackings, so we started taking low quality porno pictures of people.

I'm going to ruin the ending for you, it's not going to stop hijackings. They will occur. The only question then is, do we continue the level of escalation spending billions on security that is questionably unconstitutional. Or are we going to accept that 1 in 23 million odds of a plane being blown up just isn't worth the invasiveness and indignities?

As for the PETN the underwear bomber used, no the machines (which they had but they weren't in use that particular day if I remember correctly) wouldn't have seen it. The machines we used then were backscatter which aren't cancer inducing enough to do anything more than visibly see what metal detectors could detect (they are effectively worthless except as a psychological measure used in a layered approach). The millimeter machines might not have set off an "anomaly" if it was 1.25mm thick (weaved into clothing) or if it's thick but shaped like anatomy so it's confused as what it is. PETN(1.77g/cm cubed) barely has a density above cotton fibers (1.55g/cm cubed). It's more than likely invisible to the millimeter machines, I don't know for sure because the white papers the TSA have are heavily redacted and even if they weren't it's not been conducted by anyone that put their name on the papers so chances are the data isn't reliable either.

Deterrents won't stop suicidal terrorists. It's not entirely correct to say they are risk averse but at the same time once they are within reach of their goals risks be damned.

 

[Ccomp5950]

The underpants bomber boarded the plane in Amsterdam, at the time body scanners, although in use, were not compulsory in Holland, even for U.S. bound flights. If they did scan him he would have been caught.

Even if it was the millimeter scanners instead of the back scanner machines, he would probably not have been caught even if it was an airport like DFW.

I say probably because I don't know exactly what density the millimeter machines see, but if the cut off isn't RIGHT AT 1.6g per cubic cm it's going to be practically invisible.

The measures in place are not fool proof, but if I understand you correctly you want the "detterent" measures removed. Why make it easy for them?

You are focusing on the wrong people for "them". 1 in 23 million planes has a person that is going to blow it up on there. You are catering your service to that one person of 600 or so on that plane.

How about instead we don't potentially violate the constitutional rights (it will have it's day in trial, that's why I'm not saying for sure it's a violation yet though it appears likely), privacy, and well being (cancer?) of the other 13.8 billion passengers that fly?

Have security, a layered approach that makes sense, is sane and not reactionary, and escalates only when a lower problem is detected per person (probable cause) is what I want.

 

[pugsport]

Wow, you have done your "homework", this is a subject matter I feel passionately about, more so because I have been a "gnats Knacker" away from said risk. I fully appreciate and understand where you are coming from, although those that would do harm are clever, they are not always "smart" I don't have the time to go into "depth" of the physcology, but if the media says that body scanners will pick up explosives, the terrorists aren't going to do in depth research, they will concentrate on devising another method to attack. Yes security measures are inconveniant, it costs money and not always effective, but these measures are a layer for detterent. There is a constant, "close the gate when the horses have bolted" mentality. The security services should be one step ahead, but more often than not they aren't, their "think tanks" should adopt the "what if" scenarious, that way they will be more effective. As I mentioned in an earlier post the "yanks" have an OTT approach, do the measures viloate rights, I don't know, do they work? I believe so.
Hind sight can be a wonderful "thing", on 9/11 had the cabin doors been "strong doors" with a high security locking mechanism, do you not wonder how different the outcome could have been?