*Zaccheus* on 12/10/2006 at 21:49
Quote:
There never really was an expectation of privacy in an airport since the beginning of mass air travel.
Which is why few people will complain about it. Then people will get used to it. Then the principle will be expanded. Then we will be told it's nothing new. We've seen similar tactics before in this country.
I'm not saying it
is a slippery slope, I'm saying that they are deliberately pouring grease down a slope to
make it slippery. And that agenda is, in itself, part of the danger which many in the UK now see.
Privacy and civil liberties are strongly linked, the pervasiveness of CCTV cameras has not changed that.
Agent Monkeysee on 12/10/2006 at 22:53
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Which is why few people will complain about it. Then people will get used to it. Then the principle will be expanded. Then we will be told it's nothing new. We've seen similar tactics before in this country.
I'm sorry but "CCTV cameras in all public places" is extremely fucking new and I never argued otherwise. RFID usage
in airports is nothing new
with regards to airport security.
I don't see where airport security trends expanded into other walks of life. We don't have security checkpoints to get on the bus or the subway. Our luggage isn't subject to random searches or x-ray machines when riding the train. I don't have to take my shoes off to enter my local shopping mall. Where is the slippery slope?
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Privacy and civil liberties are strongly linked, the pervasiveness of CCTV cameras has not changed that.
Privacy and civil liberties
can be strongly linked but are not necessarily so. For example carrying on a cell phone conversation in Trafalgar Square and having someone stand behind me and write down my conversation is an invasion of my privacy but not a violation of my civil liberties because there is no expectation that people shouldn't be able to overhear conversations while conducting them in an open-air public place.
And again CCTV cameras are a completely different issue and have nothing to do with airport security.
*Zaccheus* on 13/10/2006 at 07:54
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
I'm sorry but "CCTV cameras in all public places" is extremely fucking new and I never argued otherwise. RFID usage
in airports is nothing new
with regards to airport security.
It is in regards to using it on people.
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
I don't see where airport security trends expanded into other walks of life. We don't have security checkpoints to get on the bus or the subway. Our luggage isn't subject to random searches or x-ray machines when riding the train. I don't have to take my shoes off to enter my local shopping mall. Where is the slippery slope?
Metal detectors were introduced to certain train stations 'to fight knife crime'.
(
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=902402006)
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4869290.stm)
Regarding random searches of people:
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3886833.stm)
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3936103.stm)
Just two examples of how things are going in this country.
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Privacy and civil liberties
can be strongly linked but are not necessarily so. For example carrying on a cell phone conversation in Trafalgar Square and having someone stand behind me and write down my conversation is an invasion of my privacy but not a violation of my civil liberties because there is no expectation that people shouldn't be able to overhear conversations while conducting them in an open-air public place.
It is a civil liberties issue if
the authorities were to insist on listening in on your conversations.
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
And again CCTV cameras are a completely different issue and have nothing to do with airport security.
Then why did you mention them (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1513225#post1513225) here?
:confused:
Agent Monkeysee on 13/10/2006 at 15:53
I didn't know that. You're right, you guys are going nuts for "security" and it's a shitty precident.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/10/2006 at 18:28
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
shitty precident.
LOLZBU$H
Thief13x on 13/10/2006 at 18:45
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
I didn't know that. You're right, you guys are going nuts for "security" and it's a shitty precident.
and thats exactly one of the reasons why I posted this thread. Do you have any idea how much money is being spent on this? I just think that this would be a cheap and simple solution that wouldn't be much more than an inconvenience to most people. For those who it is more than an inconvenience to, there is always the car. Hell, my aunt can't fly because she has some kind of chronic sinus problem, you get used to it and plan accordingly.
Atleast it would put potential terrorist attacks in the air at an all time minimum. And yes fett, and exception would be made that yankee pitchers arn't even allowed to board something that flies.forgive me I will burn in hell for this joke, I know.
He lost an engine, thats all there is to it. The NTSB will find this out soon enough.
rip
Rug Burn Junky on 13/10/2006 at 18:50
Quote Posted by Thief13x
He lost an engine, thats all there is to it. The NTSB will find this out soon enough.
Wha?
Or, you know, he was trying to make a difficult 180 degree turn in tight airspace during intense fog, lost track of where he was and hit a building.
It's pretty much about 99% certain that losing an engine had nothing to do with it.
Gingerbread Man on 13/10/2006 at 19:09
hey guys I found an engine what should I do with it
Paz on 13/10/2006 at 19:33
If it's dark you could make a game with it*
*in 1998
Gingerbread Man on 13/10/2006 at 19:40
you're supposed to call them african americans now sir :grr:
