Tasers, Airplanes and Health Insurance

[dnjan]

I guess I would feel better about the TSA body scans if my overall experience with TSA was better.
For example, the swiss army pocketknife (Victorinox) that I put into a zipped compartment of my checked bag right before checking it, and then was missing when I claimed my bag (even though the zipped compartment was still zipped and there were no tears in the compartment).
Or the migrain-tylenol in a small, unmarked plastic container in my son's checked bag that was scattered throughout his clothes when he retrieved his checked bag.
There are lots of good, professional TSA employees. They are the ones who are generally in contact with the public. I am more concerned with the anonymous, behind the scenes (scanner monitor) ones ...

 

[John in Covina]

We live in difficult times these days. In the past we had in the US a more unified value system and a greater spirit to unite against the threats to our society.

From one aspect it may be seen as separating the public into groups that are more concerned with "group rights." Some see it that the public became a series of competing groups more concerned with their group than others or individual rights.

We tread a tightrope where the balance of the power of government and rights of the individual are not in harmony but get pushed and pulled to one side or the other. In this situation if the shift is too far in one direction or the other the balance is broken and a fall off the tightrope is possible. Then it tends to take a long time for this to get fixed.

Life under wartime is not the same as life in peace time. Even now there is no consensus as to the concept of the war we seem to be in or what our response should be.

I get annoyed at things that were changed some time ago like the fact you can't mail a package from a mailbox if it is over a certain weight, rules that changed 15 or so years ago.

At the same time I think that we are so set in our ways of self interest, the idea that we should never be inconvenienced at any time. Considering if we compared our lives today to what our parents and grandparents went through in the Great Depression and WWII, do we get to complain?

Hope this doesn't get anyone too tweaked. It's just that sometimes I find it interesting watching that push and pull.

It is always time to watch "Mister Smith Goes to Washington" in the USA.

 

[Undertow]

Hope this doesn't get anyone too tweaked. It's just that sometimes I find it interesting watching that push and pull.

No way, John! I don't know about anyone else but I think it's nice to be able to talk about these things like adults without the pressures of the "interwebz" crushing the conversation with endless lunatic chatter or plain rudeness.

Also, when I started this thread, I very much had in mind the Great Depression. I was thinking, "How would my grandparents have reacted to this during the Great Depression?" I'm not specialized enough in US history during that period to know if there were screenings like this in public places, but from anecdotal evidence I've encountered, there weren't. On the other hand, I don't believe we had the same "threats" we have today.

So I ask you John (or anyone), how would you differentiate between matters of convenience vs security, or when it's a matter of privacy vs outright invasion?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm not specialized enough in US history during that period to know if there were screenings like this in public places, but from anecdotal evidence I've encountered, there weren't. On the other hand, I don't believe we had the same "threats" we have today.

Why would there be? There was only one global superpower in the early 1930s, and it wasn't the United States. What terrorism existed was domestic and highly regionalized -- night riders in the South, the occasional anarchist or crypto-fascist group in the Northeast, warring labor unions in the Rust Belt, and of course the whole gangster business.

Perhaps the closest approach to the national paranoia we have today happened in the wake of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping in early 1932, when many parents became terrified over the prospect that something would happen to their own kids -- never mind that the Lindbergh baby was stolen out of his parents' home *while his parents were there.* But even with that people had the sense to realize that the odds against such a thing happening to them were so insignificant as to be near-impossible, and the panic passed almost as quickly as it came.

 

[John in Covina]

I can't right fast enough to adequetely discuss this.

I think that the problem first lies with a personal view of whether our not we are at war right now. A lot of people have no thought as to whether there is a threat we are under nor the ability of those that would wish us harm to use our Rights and Freedom against us.

At the same time we have some rather horrendous precedents that were set in the past from Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus (Spelling) in the Civil War to the internment of the Japanese on the West Coast of the US in WWII. Note also that the West Coast interned them but in Hawaii internment did not happen so we are inconsistant too. Outside the US we have seen over the decades numerous countries in Europe the former Eastern Block and those we would consider 3rd World areas fall into turmoil and then into Martial Law only to precede into Fascism and /or dictatorship with the promise of peace and security.

In the past we gave up things with the sure and certain knowledge that it would be returned after the hostilities were over. Now we are in a time in which it seems that no one can promise an end to hostilities and a return to the rights and freedom we had before, Therefore the fear of such a situation makes the question most poinient. As Americans we have a history based on the idea of limited government and a history of removing obsticles (such as rights) to getting the job at hand done (such as War) so we can return to the Blessing of Liberty. We now have a history of losing things that are not regained and that makes many fearful of too strong a government.

Institutions rarely can admit wrong doing and rectifying mistakes by government are done on a nearly geological time scale. At the same time we expect a level of protection that is nearly impossible to keep.

If you read the Bill of Rights there is no Right to Privacy listed and no amendment that I can recall. At the same time we know that every man (and woman's) home is their castle and that concept speaks volumes to the right to privacy. What was understood by most is complicated by the need to spell it out because the understanding of what we "knew" to be clear and accepted by all is clouded beyond recognition. The right to privacy now makes it so your doctors can't share your information in an efficient manner.

I don't know when it happened but it seems that we have laws in place that protect the hyper-sensitive over the rights of ordinary folk. Life became very complicated not just the special cases but for ordinary living. We came from a short document such as the Declaration of Independence on one page to separate us from England to a book on how to buy broccoli for government use.

It may be because we have people always looking for a LOOPHOLE, a sense of using the letter of the law to get around the spirit of the law. Perhaps then the other side is a ridged: "Let Justice be done though the heavens fall."

All I can say is this:
Freedom does take constant vigilance but sometimes sacrifice for others takes precedence. The most important thing to know is when to apply the one of the two principals at the right time.

 

[Feraud]

Many generations had their societal threats that should not be compared and contrasted to the present. Whether it be a world war, depression, nuclear war, AIDS, etc. it is all the same stressful situations to the people who live through it.
I don't see that people had life easy in the good old days because air security was relaxed and boys could stroll into school with their hunting rifles.

 

[JimWagner]

I think what's different is that many people have come to believe that government can and will make their lives safer and seem more than willing to let that government into every area of their lives.

Anyone feel safer?

 

[scottyrocks]

So I ask you John (or anyone), how would you differentiate between matters of convenience vs security, or when it's a matter of privacy vs outright invasion?

This question, in and of itself, as it relates to the present day, has very little to do with the GE, imho. It is a question dealing with a very fine balancing act with no clear lines of delineation, and the side an opinion falls on could have deep political undertones that could cause a ruckus here if not handled with kid gloves.

I think that if opinions are expressed, it should be done without any finger pointing.

 

[John in Covina]

So I ask you John (or anyone), how would you differentiate between matters of convenience vs security, or when it's a matter of privacy vs outright invasion?

I don't mind this question because I can't answer it to a completeness that can satisfy everyone let alone people that might agree with my actual sentiments.

We all have a hard time in some degree with these questions. I am old enough to remember not having to go through metal detectors to go into government buildings and as such I resent that as an intrusion. At the same time I realized that we are in a bad situation and while I question the need I also understand what happens if there is a bad incident. I also resent the idea that we may never go back to no metal detectors either. There is a loss of access with this. You may say well who is hurt by this, surely only bad people are hurt by it, but there is a concept that if you make things a pain in the butt to do you will gradually cut down the number of people that will bother to go when they need to do so. (Look at the % of people that vote in any election versus those that are eligible to vote.)

Privacy is similar: electronic eavesdropping should only hurt the bad people but the knowledge that your phone calls are being listened to or your emails read has a stifling effect on your free speech and your right to express an opinion since we don't know the future and don't knoew when a casual remark maybe taken out of context at a later date when the power base has shifted or new guidelines are in place..

(If any here have not read the Orwell book 1984, also Fahrenheit 451 if you get a chance.)

I just know that when absolutes are called for and written up by human beings, then instituted by human beings, we can expect to have results that will not go well with our high ideals. We are not perfect and we can't come up with perfect results 100% of the time, it is then we need to be aware, when does it become simply a matter of "the cost of doing business" mentality.

Somebody said of pornography "I know it when I see it" and that seems to apply in some ways here.

 

[CharlieB]

Privacy is similar: electronic eavesdropping should only hurt the bad people but the knowledge that your phone calls are being listened to or your emails read has a stifling effect on your free speech and your right to express an opinion since we don't know the future and don't knoew when a casual remark maybe taken out of context at a later date when the power base has shifted or new guidelines are in place..

I don't worry as much about what the government might hear as much as any technology eventually lands in the hands of those who are truly nefarious.

I have never been much for conspiracy theory: I don't think our government is that well organized!

 

[John in Covina]

You have probably had a visit from Sector G7 but don't know it. They come in replace all of your furniture -with identical stuff.:eeek::wink:

 

[CharlieB]

You have probably had a visit from Sector G7 but don't know it. They come in replace all of your furniture -with identical stuff.:eeek::wink:

And their Director's name is Wright, Steven Wright!

 

[Diamondback]

Anyone feel safer?

Quite the opposite, actually...:eeek:

 

[Aviator]

Not drawing comparisons would be folly. Although there may be fewer Israeli airports, those airports are at the very least, mired in "terrorism". In any case, I disagree with your choice of words.

Perhaps I should have said "apples and oranges. I don't think we should ignore Israel, but the "Israel does this, why don't we" is weak, in my opinion based on the threat.

Again, I must disagree with your choice of words. The TSA screening machines DO, in fact, have the capacity, they are simply "disabled" by the manufactuer prior to receipt.
Body scanners can store, send images, group says

Intersting claim, but I saw nothing to back it up.

And like I said, "use metal detector wand to localize frisk pattern" works just as well and faster.

Excuse me, I don't mean to belittle anyone else's experience, but how many of you have gone toe-to-toe with a suicide-bomber, even a hoax-bomber? I have, and this was before I even graduated high-school, which I now call my "Civics Final From Hell." How many here had offered to trade their lives for their classmates', despite personally despising the lot of them, at that age?

*crickets chirping*

As for Beslan, when that went down, along with several college-campus spree-killings, the Chancellor of my college was an advisor to Homeland Security about collegiate matters, and he brought me in as one of his advisors--I had been working with Security war-gaming out various scenarios for a while, plus he also used me as Media Liaison to my other job, the college paper. I'm also Defense Department Level I Antiterror Certified, so I believe I have some cred here.

Am I an Arrogant SOB? Maybe--hell, probably--but I also do know that of which I speak, even if not as credentialed as some schmuck with a fancy longwinded title and a bunch of letters after his name.

Respectfully submitted.

Sounds like you have bona fides, and I appreciate your background, but that isn't actually an argument. Now I'm a sucker for data points, and the like to prove an argument.

*Full disclosure...I work for the Dept of Homeland Security, so take what I type with a grain of salt.*

 

[glynb]

I can't right fast enough to adequetely discuss this.

I think that the problem first lies with a personal view of whether our not we are at war right now. A lot of people have no thought as to whether there is a threat we are under nor the ability of those that would wish us harm to use our Rights and Freedom against us.

At the same time we have some rather horrendous precedents that were set in the past from Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus (Spelling) in the Civil War to the internment of the Japanese on the West Coast of the US in WWII. Note also that the West Coast interned them but in Hawaii internment did not happen so we are inconsistant too. Outside the US we have seen over the decades numerous countries in Europe the former Eastern Block and those we would consider 3rd World areas fall into turmoil and then into Martial Law only to precede into Fascism and /or dictatorship with the promise of peace and security.

In the past we gave up things with the sure and certain knowledge that it would be returned after the hostilities were over. Now we are in a time in which it seems that no one can promise an end to hostilities and a return to the rights and freedom we had before, Therefore the fear of such a situation makes the question most poinient. As Americans we have a history based on the idea of limited government and a history of removing obsticles (such as rights) to getting the job at hand done (such as War) so we can return to the Blessing of Liberty. We now have a history of losing things that are not regained and that makes many fearful of too strong a government.

Institutions rarely can admit wrong doing and rectifying mistakes by government are done on a nearly geological time scale. At the same time we expect a level of protection that is nearly impossible to keep.

If you read the Bill of Rights there is no Right to Privacy listed and no amendment that I can recall. At the same time we know that every man (and woman's) home is their castle and that concept speaks volumes to the right to privacy. What was understood by most is complicated by the need to spell it out because the understanding of what we "knew" to be clear and accepted by all is clouded beyond recognition. The right to privacy now makes it so your doctors can't share your information in an efficient manner.

I don't know when it happened but it seems that we have laws in place that protect the hyper-sensitive over the rights of ordinary folk. Life became very complicated not just the special cases but for ordinary living. We came from a short document such as the Declaration of Independence on one page to separate us from England to a book on how to buy broccoli for government use.

It may be because we have people always looking for a LOOPHOLE, a sense of using the letter of the law to get around the spirit of the law. Perhaps then the other side is a ridged: "Let Justice be done though the heavens fall."

All I can say is this:
Freedom does take constant vigilance but sometimes sacrifice for others takes precedence. The most important thing to know is when to apply the one of the two principals at the right time.

Very well said!

 

[Diamondback]

Aviator, for the record: Respect to a fellow professional (full disclosure, my job at the paper was the editor's Personal Protection Detail under cover of being a lowly "reporter/editorial assistant", and now for me despite it going straight to the core of who I am it's more like "former profession" despite that I do try to keep up on things), my snark about longwinded titles was targeted at the Ivory Tower pinheads at the top.

 

[John in Covina]

As to Israel, it would be close minded to simply dismiss what works elsewhere, while it may not work here, elements of what they do may be influential as to what we should do. One should learn from what works as well as what doesn't.

 

[CharlieB]

I did come up with a new slogan for the TSA

"Travel safety, with a personal touch"....

 

[Aviator]

Perhaps my first post about Israel was a bit unclear, and made it sound as if we should totally disregard their security protocols due to the differences in size. I think we can learn quite a bit from them. My point is that we can't say (IMO, of course), that we should chuck our current system and go with what they do because of the differences in scale (the link also discusses difficulties with having screeners with the breadth of knowledge required for the interview process).

Do I think our screening is perfect? Nope. Part of my first post was to point out that scanners met a requirement for advanced screening using technology, and that if any of us were in the position to make policy decisions regarding passenger safety many of us would weigh the negatives and go with the scanners. The American people have demanded (at least shortly after any terrorist incident) to be able to fly safely, and those in power are going to try to meet that demand.
And I honestly do have problems with the enhanced pat-downs...I'm guessing public outcry will lead to a decrease.

 

[Undertow]

My point is that we can't say (IMO, of course), that we should chuck our current system and go with what they do because of the differences in scale.

Very good; I think we are on the same page here. Although I may disagree on the necessity of the security altogether, I would agree that if we are to have security, we cannot take one country's policy and make it our own without first considering the difference in populations and scale.

Intersting claim, but I saw nothing to back it up.

To address your second concern, I will post what information I can that would back up claims made in the CNN article.
TSA Privacy: Advanced Imaging Technology
You will see this article clearly states, "Advanced imaging technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image, and the image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer. [bold characters are mine] One might argue semantics as to the "automatic" deletion, especially considering that a remotely located officer must first "clear" the image - but I don't have the ability to source information on the actual mechanics of the screening procedure at this time.

TSA Blog: TSA Response to “Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images”
This link details that the same machines used by the US Marshal Service had recorded images at a Florida Courthouse checkpoint. The TSA goes on to say that they cannot store images, etc.

Preliminary Analysis: Documents obtained from Department of
Homeland Security concerning Body Scanners
PDF detailing that the device specifications set by the TSA indicate any scanner machine purchased must "include the ability to store, record, and transfer images, contrary to the representations made by the TSA", etc. The article also details the lawsuit that is being brought before a DC court.

TSA Imaging Technology
This TSA link once detailed how the machines image saving ability was disabled
by the manufacturer. If you follow the link, you'll see that the page has been "moved" and is now appended.

In any case, I believe it's quite clear that the technology exists, the hardware and software exist - they're just "disabled" or "not used" by TSA scanners.