|
Big Brother (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 00soups00 |
just a tad overboard there bragi...
whilst some of what you say is true, unfortunately
that just seems to be the natural way the social fabric
seems to be on an ever spiralling decline...
not just on our judgements and treatments of middle-easteners
but also things such as manners and basic respect of each
other.
but just slow down a tad before going on wild, crazy
mind fantasies about shutting down of houses etc |
|
|
| Chookie |
| Narcism, thanks for replying to my novel, I would like some more people to reply, maybe with some FACTS |
|
|
| gumble |
| I SMELL SEXX AND CANDYYYYYYYYYYYYyyy |
|
|
| Chookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by gumble
I SMELL SEXX AND CANDYYYYYYYYYYYYyyy |
Is that a fact? |
|
|
| batemanscott |
Once again i make my point really simply.......
If there was a chance that an invasion of your privacy could save the life of another human being, known or not, family or not, and no guarantee but only a chance, would you allow it??
If somebody killed somebody you loved or knew, and there was even the most remote chance that these pathetic measures we are taking to prevent it happening could work in any small insignificant way i'm sure you would have wished them done! |
|
|
| lethal |
James, id just like to clarify one point you made....
You WERE talking about American airports, not Australian airports!! Australia's airports are amongst the most secure in the world for detecting things such as chemicals, weapons, and drugs. And our airports HAVE been this safe since before the 2000 olympics. It is also a well documented fact that the supply of drugs coming through Australian airports has dropped to almost zero (it is no longer profitable to even attempt to bring them in by air anymore - too bad the same cant be said for our ports (or not too bad depending on your point of view!:D)).
America on the other hand are a pack of useless wankers when it comes to securing their airports - it was the old kneejerk reaction after 9/11. America introduced heaps more security guards and air marshalls to their flights and airports and guess were they got all these guards? From the lists of FIRED security guards of these airports! So every security guard that was fired for theft or bribery or whatever - got immediately rehired so the american people could feel safe! :rolleyes:
America's airports are a joke - Australia's are not......
I just felt that needed to be clarified. |
|
|
| bragi |
Our international airports are very secure, especially compared to the States. However, most of the visible security measures taken at our airports are there basically to be seen, so people feel secure.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't believe in useless security. It's like fingerprint/eye biometrics on passports. They make the politicians feel secure, and they make the populace in general think that things are more secure, but in point of fact, they're worse than useless. This goes for national ID cards too, but most especially for ID cards with biometrics.
Basically, this useless frippery is very easily faked, or bypassed. I've done it myself testing biometric security measures for work. Cheap-o fingerprint scanners can be bypassed with a freezer bag of like warm water. The expensive ones with a fingerprint lifted from a coffee mug using a digital camera, a blank PCB + etchers, a laser printer, and some paint on latex.
The iris scanners? A sufficently high res digital camera and a decent colour bubblejet. Don't go thinking someone sufficently determined couldn't get them made into contacts.
Why is this worse than ID without biometrics? Because it means people trust the ID implicitly. If you pass the computer check, you're in the clear. Because the biometrics are weak, the system is less trustable than without.
Now, another misconception of my posts seems to be that I'm paranoid. Well, I'm not.
Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity
Having worked in government, I can say stupidity abounds, and is in fact, the leading cause of privacy and rights errosion. Politicians see these nice easy solutions, like the visible security at airports, or national ID cards, or those ever so attractive biometric IDs, and are too stupid to see the danger. All they see are the votes available from the "look how safe we've made things for you, look at everything you have to go through to do anything, that has the terrorists/drug runners/etc quaking in their boots!", and worse, they actually believe what they say!
What we should be looking at are the cold hard numbers, which show what security measures are effective. We need real security, not warm fuzzies and a bit of a jolly from the pat down the security guard gives you.
Want an example of visible but useless security? Bouncers. Do they actually prevent drugs getting in the club? Will they stop a person determined to bring in a weapon? [not all weapons are metal]
Want an example of less visible, but very real security? Bouncers in conjunction with bar staff. Bar staff are very good at predicting who's going to be trouble, and bouncers are very good at removing that trouble before it becomes a real problem.
Now, would I give up my freedoms to save one life? I think I'll defer yet again to World War II... did all those soldiers think it was worth giving up their freedom to save one life? Captiulating and not fighting back would have saved an awful lot of lives, at least in the first years... so, would it have been worth it?
Me specifically, would I give up my very real freedoms for a nebulous "possibility" of saving a life? No. Would I give them up if someone was in a very real way in danger? Possibly. It would depend.
You're probably thinking "it would depend?!? how callous is he?"
Well, let's postulate quickly... someone on death row for a murder they did commit... yet, I can give up my freedom and say "it was me!" when I didn't, would I? Hell no!
If chookie was in danger? In a heartbeat, and you'd better believe it.
So let me ask all of you, if noone you knew directly was in danger, if it was only a possibility of something going wrong, would you be prepared to give up your freedoms and rights so things could be made to seem secure, when in fact that security had no effect at all on "the bad guys"? |
|
|
| r e z |
bragi, could not agree with you more.
using the RAVE scene is a perfect example that we all can relate to.
if only everyone thought outside the square we lived in (you have a mind of your own, media, government, propaganda should not phase your stance one bit) |
|
|
| eRRaTiK |
get back on topic people!!
merlin was chippy chappy on rove earlier tonight. |
|
|
| lethal |
Umm just a thought on that visible security your talking about James, a large portion of it is not to stop a determined person (it takes a great deal to stop a determined person) but to deter people who are thinking about it! E.g - if someone is thinking about taking a gun into a club to harrass/harm/kill someone and they see bouncers doing metal detector searches are they really going to go to all the effort of trying to conceal the gun and risk the chance of discovery on trying to get into the club or are they just going to wait for another oppurtunity? There gonna wait of course, thus the visible security has just done its job, its prevented the gun from entering the club (even though in truth it could have gotten in if the person had REALLy tried) and saved innocent peoples lives. Thus in effect visible security does do a job, because it deters people from making the first move!
63% of people admit they would steal if they knew they couldnt get caught but 85% of those people say they never would if their was even a small chance they could be caught in the act!
Also, in the airport case, people visibially watching the visible security are usually the ones watched by the more effective invisible security, so visible security is doing its job even if only by making it obvious who the invisible security should be watching!! (i hope that makes sense!:p) |
|
|
| bragi |
Lethal,
it makes a lot of sense, and was not what I was really arguing. What I'm really trying to get at (in a round about way) is that the gradual errosion of our rights and privacy is dangerous.
You (generic) may not notice today, you may not notice tomorrow, but in 10 years time, will you look back on today and think about how much things have changed, how few rights you have? how little privacy?
It starts with the really visible security being ramped up, but there's not so many small steps from there to access-without-warrant to details about your life (bank accounts, memberships, books you've read at the library). We're already at able-to-be-held-without-charge-and-no-access-to-legal-counsel on "terrorist" charges.
Is the much more intrusive visible security that we have post 9/11 actually any more effective than the visible security we had for the games? I remember what the security was like then, I was flying around during the games. I forgot about a kitchen knife I'd bought in Sydney when flying back to Brisbane. Had it in my carry-on luggage.
These days I'd have to throw it out, or go back and try and find another flight, etc, etc, etc (this knife cost me $300). In 2000, they simply popped it in a bag which went to the flight attendants, which I got back from the counter in Brisbane. Simple, effective, unobtrusive.
Also these days, having that knife in my bag would be cause enough for a full on search of me bodily, as well as all my baggage. It's no more effective at preventing me getting a usable knife in a usable place on the plane. It sure as hell is a greater invasion of my privacy.
Don't mistake obtrusive visible security for unobstrusive, slightly less visible, but equally effective security.
Walk-through metal detectors at clubs? Are they more effective at preventing people getting guns or knives in the club than the usual pat down/swipe by bouncers? No, not really.
How does all this apply to refugees? Quite simple. We start by taking away their rights. Then detaining them. There's not so many small steps from there to getting a very intimate search at the airport for having nail clippers in your handbag.
How does all this apply to Merlin? Well, obviously his protest some good. It's got us talking! Oh, and should he have talked? Hell no, talking would have ruined the protest completely, and rendered it very ineffective. |
|
|
|
|
