|
Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: WayAbvPar on July 23, 2004, 04:02:53 PM Linkage (http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711)
Disturbing story, to say the least. How much of it was colored by the author's fear, and how much is reality? Does anyone work in the airline industry? Has this sort of thing been common (either an overreaction or a narrowly averted tragedy)? Not looking forward to my next flight. I am sure everything will be fine, but I have enough trouble getting comfortable on a plane without additional irrational fears. Thank God for Captain Morgan and his yummy spiced rum. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: SirBruce on July 23, 2004, 06:45:56 PM Part of the story is the woman being stupid. She complains about how they weren't screened at Detroit, and implies that these men were not. But they were, if that was where they came in, or they were screened at their previous airport, like she was. So there's not a problem there.
Their behavior is what makes little sense to me, and I don't understand why these men were not ordered back to their seats. Were they actual terrorists? Perhaps not this time, but they could have been doing a "trial run" to figure out what was possible and what wasn't. I am happy that thanks to the Partriot Act, I'm sure these men are now under surveillance. As to the racial profiling, it's stupid for people to be against it, but even if you ARE going to be against it, you must see that saying pulling 2 arab men out for closer screening would be racial profiling is absurd. If they had looked at ALL of the arab men closely, and almost NONE of the non-arabs, THAT would be racial profiling. So as usual, beauracratic rules fuck things up. Bruce Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Comstar on July 23, 2004, 07:21:04 PM Oh good greif. This has been debunkced already. They were a MUSICAL BAND. Played a casino. The women was parinoid, a idiot, a fearmunger and a nd seems to be a lunatic. In other words, the terriost scare is working well for the Bush administratron.
Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Logain on July 23, 2004, 07:30:54 PM Quote from: Comstar The women was parinoid, a idiot, a fearmunger and a nd seems to be a lunatic. If shit like that was going down on a flight that you were on, you'd be scared too. Quote from: Comstar In other words, the terriost scare is working well for the Bush administratron. Where, exactly, did politics come into play in that article? Maybe I missed it or maybe you're the "parinoid" idiot here. Who knows? Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Disco Stu on July 23, 2004, 07:53:44 PM Quote from: SirBruce As to the racial profiling, it's stupid for people to be against it, but even if you ARE going to be against it, you must see that saying pulling 2 arab men out for closer screening would be racial profiling is absurd. If they had looked at ALL of the arab men closely, and almost NONE of the non-arabs, THAT would be racial profiling. So as usual, beauracratic rules fuck things up. Bruce No that would be an extream case of racial profiling. Definition (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Racial_profiling) P.S. its stupid for peopel to be in favour of it Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Comstar on July 23, 2004, 08:15:06 PM Here (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3299) and here (http://www.leanleft.com/archives/003339.html) debunk the story.
The women was more of a threat, as it sounds like she could have told REAL terriosts who the air marshels were. Quote PANIC IN THE SKIES....Via Armed Liberal, local radio station KFI has yet more about the Annie Jacobsen "Terror in the Skies" story today: Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, “overreacted,” to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS. The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service. ....“The lady was overreacting,” said the source. “A flight attendant was told to tell the passenger to calm down; that there were air marshals on the plane.” ....Federal agents later verified the musicians’ story. “We followed up with the casino,” Adams said. A supervisor verified they were playing a concert. A second federal law enforcement source said the concert itself was monitored by an agent. “We also went to the hotel, determined they had checked into the hotel,” Adams said. Each of the men were checked through a series of databases and watch-lists with negative results, he said. Bottom line: the Syrians were searched in Boston before they boarded the plane, the flight crew was not concerned about their behavior, air marshals were aboard and checked the lavatory after the Syrians used it, there was more concern over Jacobsen's panic than over anything the Syrians did, and their story was thoroughly checked out after the plane landed. There was no reason to kick the Syrians out the emergency exit without a parachute and no reason for the plane to land before it reached Los Angeles. The sad part is that I'll bet none of this satisfies Jacobsen. Her memory of her panic will keep her convinced that she was right no matter what the evidence says, and there will be plenty of people out there to egg her on. As Barry Glassner says, we live in a culture of fear — and as this episode shows, law enforcement probably spends as much time fighting fear itself as it does fighting actual terrorism. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Abagadro on July 23, 2004, 09:55:52 PM salon.com has a story about how stupid this is. Not sure if it is subscriber only, but you can try to access it here: http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2004/07/21/askthepilot95/index.html
Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Riggswolfe on July 23, 2004, 11:04:04 PM Here is my take on racial profiling and airports:
Were any of the September 11 terrorists non-Arabic? No? Then sorry. If you're an Arab you need to be searched. Period. When little old white women start hijacking planes we'll reconsider. As for the story, I'm inclined to think she was witness to a dry run. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: SirBruce on July 23, 2004, 11:22:12 PM I never denied that the woman was overreacting or that they were, in fact, planning a terrorist act. However, "investigating" them and verifying that they were musicians does nothing to explain the behavior that she witnessed. Perhaps she was mistaken, but it was still correct for her to have been concerned. I don't recall her saying they should have been kicked out of the plane or that the plane should have had an emergency landing, but maybe I missed that part.
The fact that they bothered to check them out after the plane landed shows, indeed, that others were also concerned by their activities. Bruce Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Flashman on July 24, 2004, 12:08:29 AM Quote from: Comstar Here (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3299) and here (http://www.leanleft.com/archives/003339.html) debunk the story. The women was more of a threat, as it sounds like she could have told REAL terriosts who the air marshels were. Well you don't need to be a genius to figure out who the air marshals are on any flight. They're be the clean shaven well groomed men in suits who have preboarded the flight. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/politics/17marshals.html This woman had a right to be concerned. The fact that 14(!) men were acting in this way and were never challenged by anyone is chilling. What's the lesson to be drawn here by all of these attacks on her? When you see something very suspicious, sit down, keep your mouth shut and pray you're wrong? That doesn't cut it anymore. It's easy to say she was wrong looking at it in hindsight, but you would have a different reaction flying at 35,000 feet in a metal tube. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Ookii on July 24, 2004, 12:33:08 AM This stupidity in dealing with planes is beginning to piss me off.
I have to admit, I thought the hijacking of the planes was a really clever plan... but to do it again? With all the restricitions we have on planes now, and the media describing other vulnerabilities we have post 9/11, I'm sure they terrorists are smart enough to go a different route. Also about this selective screening thing, are you an idiot? We have all this security dealing with airplanes now, you don't need to worry about being blown up in the air. Here is my philosophy: Just go with the flow. If you get on a flight, and out of all the flights that day there is a terrorist who manages to get through airport security, avoid the air martials, and get to the pilot before he can radio the tower, who then blows/hijacks the plane, and you die, then that is how you were meant to go. The odds are so low, that you just have to accept it. Same thing when we had that DC sniper, if out of all the millions of people in the DC area, he kills me, well then that's just how it is. Restricting the freedom of a group of people is not worth the lives of 200 or so odd people (face it, if something happens the plane will get either shot down in the sky by the military, or blown up by the terrorists, you won't have to worry about another kamikaze stunt) that would be killed if terrorists actually manage to out-play us again. This thing is bigger than you or I, don't make some stupid statement just because you don't feel "safe". Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: SurfD on July 24, 2004, 12:44:03 AM Why do people even bother going outside any more? I mean, dont you realise that you could be killed by a drunk driver, perhaps deliberately run over by an Islamic man in a hit and run terrorist attack, or, hell, maybe you will be killed by falling debris from a plane that the one hijacker that manages to get through security blows up over your city.
The culture of fear and uncertainty you people are gradually smothering yourself in is just disturbing. Reminds me of my father, who, unfailingly, will caution us to be carefull and avoid major highways on our way home in winter, simply because the weather calls for a storm, and driving in the snow is dangerous......drives me nuts. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: daveNYC on July 24, 2004, 06:23:14 AM Quote from: Riggswolfe Were any of the September 11 terrorists non-Arabic? No? Then sorry. If you're an Arab you need to be searched. Period. When little old white women start hijacking planes we'll reconsider. Racial profiling means you end up having a racial blind spot to anyone who isn't obviously and Arab. That is teh stupid. Her story about using multiple people to assemble a bomb while in flight was good for a laugh. One guy can try and blow a flight using his shoe, and all of a sudden it takes 14 people to make a bomb. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Murgos on July 24, 2004, 08:03:46 AM Um, they detained the Syrians. Which means they searched thier instruments, searched them, searched the lavatories, searched all parts of the plane accessible to them and found nothing.
The woman was scared because they had a McDonalds bag and she didn't know what was in it, she was scared because they had instrument cases and didn't know what was in them, she was scared because they went to the bathroom in groups and she was scared because one of them read from a little red book. Give me a break, she's a lunatic. I like how everything in the article is her husband was worried, her husband was anxious, etc... when the stuff debunking it was entirely how much of a pain in the ass she was. That there are people even on this board taking her side that this was a 'dry run' just means I need to lower my opinion of you all a notch or two. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: AOFanboi on July 24, 2004, 10:53:34 AM Were all Irish-Americans "profiled" before entering public buildings post-Oklahoma when they found Timothy McVeigh? Why not? The Irish (or rather Northern Irish) were known at the time as terrorists, what with the IRA and all that.
But noo. Irish-Americans and Irish in general are "known". Muslim Arabs are "unknown". So unknown, in fact, that post-9/11 there were some "vengeance killings", among others one Egyptian Koptic (Christian) and a Sikh from India (they too wear turbans). At least this woman didn't kill the "perceived terrorists". Planes are full of easily breakable bottles (turn into sharp weapons), coincidentally filled with flammable alcohol. It's a wonder they haven't closed down tax-free shopping yet, but there you go: Commercial interests beat security any day. Even before 9/11 there was a (failed) attempt at blowing up at least one of the Twin Towers. That time also by Arab terrorists. Was security ramped up after that? Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Murgos on July 24, 2004, 11:38:57 AM Quote from: AOFanboi Even before 9/11 there was a (failed) attempt at blowing up at least one of the Twin Towers. That time also by Arab terrorists. Was security ramped up after that? Err, yes? Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Margalis on July 24, 2004, 12:57:00 PM I'm all for racial profiling.
If group X is twice as likey as goup Y to commit a crime, it makes sense to focus more on group X. That's just obvious. If my demographic (boring white male) were to go on a crazy crime spree, I would *expect* and *want* to be stopped more often than others. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: gimpyone on July 24, 2004, 01:36:47 PM Quote from: Margalis I'm all for racial profiling. If group X is twice as likey as goup Y to commit a crime, it makes sense to focus more on group X. That's just obvious. If my demographic (boring white male) were to go on a crazy crime spree, I would *expect* and *want* to be stopped more often than others. School shootings and corporate crime. Also the manfacture and sale of meth. I agree with you just saying what we'd be profiled for. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: schild on July 24, 2004, 03:26:10 PM Well, as far as school shootings go, at least they normally end up with the whackjob shooting themselves in the head. Though sometimes I wish they'd miss so they could do some time with Gimpy the Assraper before hanging themselves in their cell.
As for racial profiling, until there is a better way to predict crime or find criminals, do it. Who gives a fuck what the rest of the Arabs or Irish or whoever think, if 1 out of 100 people happen to be carrying some sort of existenz style non-metal gun or bomb onto a plane, I'm glad the rest of the people had rubber gloves up their ass. I personally hope the innocent victims of the profiling say "thank you" after it's all said and done. The problem is when people yell 'racist' when boring-white-guy say "screw x-race, detain them all." Boring white guy is right. Sorry jackass, but until your everyday white dude in an Old Navy sweatshirt and crappy jeans carries a bomb into wherever, your people fucked you. Not us. Speaking of people who cry wolf, has someone killed Michael Moore yet? Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: SirBruce on July 24, 2004, 03:32:07 PM Quote from: AOFanboi Were all Irish-Americans "profiled" before entering public buildings post-Oklahoma when they found Timothy McVeigh? Why not? The Irish (or rather Northern Irish) were known at the time as terrorists, what with the IRA and all that. But he didn't blow it up in relation to his Irish heritage. He DID blow it up in relation to him being a white christian militia type. Were such groups heavily looked at after his attack? Yes. If I was a member of a white militia group, should I expect to get increased scrutiny? Yes. Bruce Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Comstar on July 24, 2004, 07:05:57 PM Quote from: schild As for racial profiling, until there is a better way to predict crime or find criminals, do it. At this point, what evidence is there that racial profiling WORK? At this point AFAIK, it's just as useless as face recon software. Besides, as is well known, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Suadi's, not Syrian. Richard Reed was BRITISH. One of the two australians in Gitmo right now is anglo-saxon (the other one is of arab decent, though has an Australian passport, not sure if he was born here or not). And trhe largest terriost attack in america before 2001 was by a very white guy. Should you assume all Iraqi's are terriosists? What about the err...good ones working for the US? Then again, you had the INDIAN defence minister stopped and strip searched. You never can tell who might be carrigning a bomb in thier shoes these days I guess. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: schild on July 24, 2004, 07:15:24 PM In Richmond, VA. a couple years back (specifically Goochland county I believe), there was a case of racial profiling that got a lot of mexicans out of trouble. Here's how it worked.
The police officers in Goochland stopped any mini-van with mexican/central american looking people in it that was going exactly the speed limit of lower on 295E/W because they were 'supposedly moving drugs around.' Now before you chime in with the 'everyone should go the speed limit crap,' it's generally accepted on that road to go about 10-15 over the speed limit because it is a Straight Line and flat. Anyway, turns out they had about a 60% success rate or some higher surprisingly good number (I think there was an article about this in Richmond Times Dispatch like 4 years ago). Anyway, iirc, the Supreme Court of Virginia threw all the cases out and the drug cartel people back on the street because the racial profiling was unconstitutional. Fuck that noise. Edit: I tried to find the article on timesdispatch.com but it seems RTD thinks it's a rag worth reading (as in, you need a subscription). Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: CmdrSlack on July 24, 2004, 07:40:16 PM Racial profiling is an excuse for lazy police work. It also raises Constitutional issues of Due Process and Equal Protection violations.
Suffice it to say, when one race gets short shrift, it can (and does) lead to the cutting of corners, etc. "Sure," you might say, "whatever busts criminals faster." Problem is that when you start cutting corners, people make mistakes. Those mistakes can, in turn, cause evidence that would have been otherwise properly seized to be inadmissible. Inadmissible evidence means the state has a much harder time making its case, which in turn means that odds are the defendant (who may, in fact, be guilty as sin) goes free. Cause - effect, etc. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: daveNYC on July 24, 2004, 08:45:54 PM Not to mention the fact that these people aren't stupid. If airports go over Arab passengers with a fine toothed comb, they'll just scrounge up an Indonesian nutjob to do it. Or shave and dye their hair. Or get a white convert wacko to do it.
Terrorists are not one dimensional critters. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Joe on July 24, 2004, 09:30:13 PM After reading, I'm pretty sure some of it is exaggeration, namely the feigned slit throat part. I'm also reasonably sure if this woman was as much of a problem as some of the other places claimed, the men were fucking with her. I know if I was the victim of subtle aggression from someone, I'd do my best to ruin their day, too.
Regarding the profiling thing, I don't really give a fuck. I look like a member of some IRA cell, and I get stoped because of it from time to time. I also travel light and look extremely agitated all the time (fuck you, airlines). I also wouldn't give a rat's ass if it went away, because it's a pretty shitty excuse for an asshole with a modicum of power trying to sate his napoleanic complex by targeting one group or another solely based on an arbitrary definition of risk. I suppose, overall, it's a question of role reversal. I wouldn't want to be accosted by a bunch of Protestant officials in Northern Ireland just because I happen to be a Catholic single male between the ages of 18 and 25. I wouldn't mind my bag being searched, or an extra patdown, or even a question or two during the procees. However, being carried off to Room 101 by men with guns isn't acceptable unless there is a true cause for alarm. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: geldonyetich on July 24, 2004, 10:27:58 PM I look at Terrorists in much the same way as I'd regard all the other wonderful things in the world that can kill me. Disease, Cancer, Natural Disaster, Slipping on a bar of soap, ect. Any shrink would tell you that dwelling on stuff like this achives absolutely no productive purpose other than creating stress. (Yes, with the exception of if you are employed to dwell on it.)
What really bothers me is that Terrorism is really no different than any of these other causes of death when it comes to frequency. Cancer need be no more common today than 200 years ago, but we sure hear about it a lot more. The sacking of Rome, 9/11, it's all a matter of the monkeysphere isn't it? The truly discusting thing is to see that there are those in our own government who find our fears to be the perfect political weapon for them to pass laws that destroy the very freedom our country was found on. Racial profiling makes logical sense, but in application it causes more terrorism than it prevents. Despite what one's ego might suggest, sadly fascism has time and time again proven failed experiment versus the human spirit. Maybe if we had chips in the back of neck, Syndicate style (http://archive.gamespy.com/halloffame/october00/syndicate/), but who would like to volunteer for first fittings? Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Flashman on July 24, 2004, 11:21:13 PM Quote from: Comstar Quote from: schild As for racial profiling, until there is a better way to predict crime or find criminals, do it. At this point, what evidence is there that racial profiling WORK? At this point AFAIK, it's just as useless as face recon software. It works for El Al. Haven't had a problem on an airliner since 1968. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Comstar on July 25, 2004, 04:48:49 AM Neither has Qantas.
If you talking about arabs that is. The've had severel instances of WHITE guys trying to break into the pilots door and bring down the airline. The one on trial this week was told by God to kill the Tasmaian Devil. Natrually he went to Tasmania to do this. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: CmdrSlack on July 25, 2004, 09:19:40 AM Just as an aside, you guys do realize that some Arabs look white, right?
I have a ton of Arabic friends and acquaintances, and sometimes I get busted for not being able to tell. Perfect example is the time I was at a groom's party for my friend Sam. I thought I was the only white guy there, and I saw a middle-aged woman I could have sworn was white. I walk up to Sam and said, "Hey, so I'm not the only white person here." I pointed out who I was talking about and he said, "Dude, that's my mom." His mom is very pale, has blonde hair, etc. He thought it was funny as hell and I still haven't lived it down. Needless to say, that's a perfect reason why racial profiling isn't quite accurate. Hell, I know people who can't tell Italians and Greeks from Arabs. My friend Majdi gets called Italian and Hispanic more than Arab when people try to guess what nationality he is. Besides, with Catholics of all types in the Arab countries, the line between "potential Muslim extremist nutjob" and "dude who does what the Pope tells him" is rather blurred just by looking at someone. I know more Arab Christians than Muslims, FWIW. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Margalis on July 25, 2004, 12:55:27 PM Racial profiling is just another form of profiling. I roll my eyes when an old white grandmother gets stopped at an airport and I don't. That's just stupid.
Who is more likely to be a terrorist? Arab or white, male, middle aged or younger. It's a question of opportunity cost. I'm not saying you should ONLY focus on a certain demographic. But focusing on some demographic is standard police work. Terrorism is no different than murder, arson or shoplifting. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: CmdrSlack on July 25, 2004, 02:24:35 PM I think most people understand racial profiling to be focusing ONLY on one group. That's the kind of profiling that has managed to get police departments in trouble in the past.
At the same time, having general suspect profiles IS normal to police work. Hell, there's DEA guidelines that give profiles for drug smugglers. And they're perfectly legit to use when choosing to hassle someone coming off a plane. The terminology of "racial profiling" is what is problematic in a discussion like this. If everyone has a different definition, then sometimes there's no real debate once the terms are made specific, etc. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: SirBruce on July 25, 2004, 04:23:02 PM But that's how the war over the ignorant masses is won. You label something in a way that gives it a negaitve connotation. Then any time you have a situation that's partially related to that phrase, you raise the label, and in doing so smear the related concept, even if there are fundamental differences.
Bruce Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Margalis on July 25, 2004, 11:49:23 PM I can't imagine many people seriously advocate ONLY looking at people of a given race. That's an illusion drummed up by the left. (I say that as a liberal-minded person)
I don't see a difference between racial and any other sort of profiling. Sure, the terrorists could wise up and get a old black woman to bomb something for them. Then again, some guy could get that same old black woman to murder his girlfriend after she filed for a restraining order, and some teenager could get that same old black woman to shoplift a Justin Timberlake CD for her... Most debate in this country consists of weighted terms and the actual debate never gets past people arguing their biased definitions of said terms. If you ever watch CSPAN you see that nobody ever actually TALKS to anybody directly or really acknowledges anything they don't agree with. I don't think political correctness should dictate that you can't use common sense anymore. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Maybe we should look at Saudis more closely? Oh boo hoo, how unfair! Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Anonymous on July 26, 2004, 09:10:05 AM I hate everyone in this thread that made me agree with sirbruce.
Those of you guilty of the above can rot, thank you very much. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: HaemishM on July 26, 2004, 12:47:16 PM While I can empathize with this woman's fear/paranoia at such an incident, she has one strike against her by quoting Ann FUCKING Coulter.
Most importantly, though, I can't see how putting 14 men on 1 flight would be an efficient use of resources. I mean it took 3-5 men for the 9/11 flights. If the operation is a suicide bombing, that's 14 agents/resources removed from future operations by a successful operation. And it's only 1 plane. Wouldn't it be more efficient to use 3 teams on 3 separate planes? Bitch needs a hot toddy and a glass of shut the fuck up. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: geldonyetich on July 26, 2004, 05:12:40 PM Quote from: HaemishM Most importantly, though, I can't see how putting 14 men on 1 flight would be an efficient use of resources. I mean it took 3-5 men for the 9/11 flights. If the operation is a suicide bombing, that's 14 agents/resources removed from future operations by a successful operation. And it's only 1 plane. Wouldn't it be more efficient to use 3 teams on 3 separate planes? Yeah, but then if these Terrorists were at all smart they'd know that creating fear in the populace just makes the current regime stronger, not weaker. Conservatives are an excellent choice when the best your average voter can do is curl up into a fetal position asking, "oh god why?!" (http://members.aol.com/labrecords/) Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: HaemishM on July 27, 2004, 08:06:42 AM Terrorists WANT our government to freak the fuck out and start cracking down on the populace. They WANT that kind of fascistic, oppressive thinking to become the norm, because that means our democracy has been weakened. If the US (or any enemy of terrorists who wish to create oppressive regimes like Al-Qaeda) gives up on its democratic ideals, that's a victory because they can point at it and go "Allah did not bless their democracy, because it did not follow the tenets of Allah's law. Now put your burkah on, bitch."
In short, they WANT silly little bitches like this to freak out every time they see an Arab man, because of the way they will react. Every time they "oppress" or hassle another innocent Arab man, that's one more potential convert or at least a sympathizer. Terrorism is a weapon in the battle for the hearts and minds. Destrcution is the tool, fear is the goal. I'd say we're about 50-50 right now. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: MrHat on July 27, 2004, 08:27:49 AM Quote from: geldonyetich Racial profiling makes logical sense, but in application it causes more terrorism than it prevents. Despite what one's ego might suggest, sadly fascism has time and time again proven failed experiment versus the human spirit. Maybe if we had chips in the back of neck, Syndicate style (http://archive.gamespy.com/halloffame/october00/syndicate/), but who would like to volunteer for first fittings? These people would: Clubbers in Spain are choosing to receive a microchip implant instead of carrying a membership card. It is the latest and perhaps the most unlikely of uses for implantable radio frequency ID chips. (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995022) Good times. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: HaemishM on July 27, 2004, 08:57:31 AM That kind of thing will become much more prevalent, but it'll take a while for the real privacy paranoids to accept that the chip won't be used to spy on their closet furry games.
Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Arcadian Del Sol on July 27, 2004, 09:33:29 AM After a handful of squadrons in which all planes were piloted by asian men, decimated our Pacific Navy, we instituted racial profiling by warehousing all our Japanese (and Chinese!) Americans into military bases.
Fear racial profiling. Its bad medicine whose side-effects are twice as deadly as the illness they promise to cure. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Alkiera on July 27, 2004, 09:38:49 AM Quote from: HaemishM That kind of thing will become much more prevalent, but it'll take a while for the real privacy paranoids to accept that the chip won't be used to spy on their closet furry games. You mean these people (http://www.spychips.com/)? -- Alkiera Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: daveNYC on July 27, 2004, 10:35:22 AM Quote from: HaemishM That kind of thing will become much more prevalent, but it'll take a while for the real privacy paranoids to accept that the chip won't be used to spy on their closet furry games. I'd be more worried about getting signed up for the Pottery Barn catalog by just walking by the store. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: HaemishM on July 27, 2004, 01:03:13 PM Quote from: Alkiera Quote from: HaemishM That kind of thing will become much more prevalent, but it'll take a while for the real privacy paranoids to accept that the chip won't be used to spy on their closet furry games. You mean these people (http://www.spychips.com/)? Holy Fuck. Yeah, those people. Quote 1. With today's bar code technology, every can of Coke has the same UPC or bar code number as every other can (a can of Coke in Toronto has the same number as a can of Coke in Topeka). With RFID, each individual can of Coke would have a unique ID number which could be linked to the person buying it when they scan a credit card or a frequent shopper card (i.e., an "item registration system"). 2. Unlike a bar code, these chips can be read from a distance, right through your clothes, wallet, backpack or purse -- without your knowledge or consent -- by anybody with the right reader device. In a way, it gives strangers x-ray vision powers to spy on you, to identify both you and the things you're wearing and carrying. 3. Unlike the bar code, RFID could be bad for your health. RFID supporters envision a world where RFID reader devices are everywhere - in stores, in floors, in doorways, on airplanes -- even in the refrigerators and medicine cabinets of our own homes. In such a world, we and our children would be continually bombarded with electromagnetic energy. Researchers do not know the long-term health effects of chronic exposure to the energy emitted by these reader devices. Don't they know you can defeat these electromagnetic rays with tinfoil? Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Murgos on July 27, 2004, 04:38:48 PM 1. When you buy a can of coke at the grocery store and pay for it with any method other than cash you could already be tracked as a 'coke drinker'. Why aren't you? NO ONE CARES.
2. Unlike just looking at you and reading the Levi label on your jeans? Or the Nike swoosh on your shoes? 3. Radio waves are all around you already every minute of every day. You can test this at home by turning on your radio. All that said I have some issues with RFID but more along the lines of being bombarded with advertising that 'thinks' it knows what you want. edit: I love this one: Quote Gillette is leading the pack, and recently placed an order for up to 500 million RFID tags from a company called "Alien Technology" (we kid you not). Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: daveNYC on July 28, 2004, 06:20:51 AM They're probably overreacting, but if someone had told me ten years ago that people would be buying cellular phones as fashion accessories I'd have laughed at them too.
Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Murgos on July 28, 2004, 07:18:46 AM I'm not bothered by the fact that they're overreacting, it bothers me that they are overreacting to trivialities.
Come up with a real issue with RFID and then blow up about it. But screaming about radio waves? Gimmie a break. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Dark Vengeance on July 28, 2004, 08:49:08 AM http://thecrowshow.com/swf/squoosh.htm
How many white people do you see in this game? Just sayin'. Racial profiling is morally objectionable, but has some measure of practicality if used intelligently....just like most forms of profiling. Yes, this lady is probably a kook, but 14 Sysrians with instrument cases is a little odd....if nothing else, who the fuck has ever heard of a 14 piece Syrian band with enough notoriety to land a gig in the US? I'd be a little antsy if each of those same 14 people started going into the same restroom one right after the other. The McDonalds bag and the little red book are certainly no more cause for suspicion than what she had already seen. Bring the noise. Cheers............. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Alluvian on July 28, 2004, 12:16:29 PM I welcome RFID with wide open arms. When I can wheel my cart up to the checkout line, have it display all the items in the cart, the unit prices, and the total without me having to take anything out of my cart, my life has just gotten a hell of a lot better.
Taking groceries off the shelf, into the cart, out of the cart, across the register, into bags, back into cart, out of cart, into car, out of car into house, off the floor/counter into fridge/cabinets is just fucking annoying. Removing a few of those steps along the way would be wonderful. As far as bags, I imagine there would be bag dispensers around the store and you would bag them as you take them off the shelf. At the local wallmart and a few other stores I see they have the help yourself checkout lines where you scan your own stuff... But it is the dumbest thing I have ever seen, because each fucking station STILL has a clerk watching you like you are about to steal some cans of soup. What is the point anyway? Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: HaemishM on July 28, 2004, 12:37:44 PM When in Connecticut last week, I saw the self-checkout lines at Stop-n-Shop, and went through one. They didn't have a clerk for every line, but they did have a roaming clerk you could ask for help. The asking for help part took up enough time (especially on produce items) that it seemed not much labor cost or time was saved. For pre-packaged items, though, I imagine it's a great deal faster.
Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: WayAbvPar on July 28, 2004, 12:41:38 PM I *heart* the self-checkout stations. I do it nearly every day at lunch at QFC- they have 4 stations, with 1 clerk in between to monitor them. It works like a charm, and I don't have to make small talk with someone while we are waiting on the debit card approval.
I am with Alluvian- bring the RFID on! It would be nice to have a running total on my shopping cart, for instance. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Dark Vengeance on July 28, 2004, 12:42:43 PM Well, you could get RFID chips in every item, and a scanner on every entrance/exit in the building....plus an RFID chip implanted in the body that would deduct the funds from your bank account. There would need to be measures to prevent people from walking out with items they couldn't afford, or applying any overage against a singular personal line of credit.
Of course, such a scenario would be remarkably close to the "mark of the beast" as foretold in the Bible....particularly as it would dictate who is able to participate in commerce. My guess is that a big chunk of religious folks will fight tooth and nail against such a system for that very reason. Bring the noise. Cheers.............. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: HaemishM on July 28, 2004, 12:53:51 PM Quote from: Dark Vengeance My guess is that a big chunk of religious folks will fight tooth and nail against such a system for that very reason. Then I can walk around these stuck-up prigs displaying my RFID chip mark on my arm saying "I'm THE DEVIL! THE DEVIL!!! LAJOJa3#r5#RUE" Now that's fun you can't buy. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: daveNYC on July 28, 2004, 01:16:35 PM Isn't the Mark of the Beast supposed to be on the forehead or something?
Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Paelos on July 28, 2004, 01:41:01 PM Quote from: Revelation 14:9-10 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: daveNYC on July 28, 2004, 01:49:28 PM Ah, career chips.
Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: Alluvian on July 29, 2004, 08:01:34 AM Quote from: Dark Vengeance Well, you could get RFID chips in every item, and a scanner on every entrance/exit in the building....plus an RFID chip implanted in the body that would deduct the funds from your bank account. There would need to be measures to prevent people from walking out with items they couldn't afford, or applying any overage against a singular personal line of credit. Of course, such a scenario would be remarkably close to the "mark of the beast" as foretold in the Bible....particularly as it would dictate who is able to participate in commerce. My guess is that a big chunk of religious folks will fight tooth and nail against such a system for that very reason. Bring the noise. Cheers.............. I am not thinking about implanted RFID chips at this point. But lines like the current self checkout lines. You pull your cart up to a terminal, it scans your cart, lists all the items so you can see if there is a mistake or a pricecheck problem, then you insert your credit/debit card and pay like you nomally do. No new problems manifesting, no new banking/credit infrastructure required. Implanting things like RFID chips is abit too much at this time for society I think, and not really needed or productive either. I will stick with the only implanted RFID chips being the ones in our pets that have our address information for the pound to contact us if they ever get lost. Title: Flying with Possible Terrorists? Post by: geldonyetich on July 29, 2004, 04:03:50 PM Course', the chips in Syndicate did more than just mark people for easy tracking. They were installed in the back of the next and actually overrode their very mind. They were combination addictive drug (as the chips could change people's perceptions to make them think life is great) and control device (capable of turning people into meat puppets for the Syndicate bosses to do their dirty work).
One hopes that this vision remains firmly mired in Science Fiction. However, it would be a way in which fascism could be successful considering the human spirit to rebel (by destroying that spirit entirely). |