drnykterstein Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Considering that Ralph has tried many times in the past to ban people bringing in food to the games unsuccessfully, the pat downs are rather half arsed, and it didn't appear that anyone was being patted down at the Club Seats / Luxury Box entrances; it sure does appear that the whole point of this (in Buffalo and league-wide) is to increase concession stand revenues. I'm sure the reasoning for no patdowns at the high fallutin entrance is something along the lines of "a terrorist wouldn't buy an expensive ticket". 476055[/snapback] Thats quite a consipiracy theory. Either way I'm sure the NFL isn't comlaining about the increased concessions revenue. I wonder though, is it enough to outweigh the cost of doing the pat downs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 You can't only look at the threat - you have to look at how effective the security solution is to stopping the threat. How many times has a patdown uncovered someone with a bomb? Even using your own concerns, how many times has someone brought a bomb into a football game? Into a sporting event in general? Aside from the Olympics (which I'm not sure was even in a restricted area, was it? My understanding was that it was equivelent to someone blowing a bomb up during a tailgate party at the Ralph but I could be mistaken). Are you in favor of patting down everyone going into a school (since you mentioned Columbine)? You'd want your child touched by a stranger every single day they went to school? How about every time they walk into the local Walmart? Patdowns have never stopped anything. They're a waste of money and an invasion of privacy. Either the NFL is doing this for window dressing, or they're doing it to stop people from smuggling in food, thus increasing their concession revenue. CW 475977[/snapback] I really wish some folks could live in my world for a week. I think they might reach a slightly different understanding. How do you know they have never stopped anything? You going to wear 40 pounds of Semtex vest through a pat down line? That invasion of privacy thing is about lame, to me. How little it takes for people to be offended. Breaking down my door with a ram and searching my house without cause is invasion of privacy. Trying to prevent, by any manner, a most likely mass casualty scenario with precedent all over the world is not necessarily, to me, an evil thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Thats quite a consipiracy theory. Either way I'm sure the NFL isn't comlaining about the increased concessions revenue. I wonder though, is it enough to outweigh the cost of doing the pat downs? 476061[/snapback] I don't think the NFL teams are picking up the tabs at most stadiums. In Cincy they don't do the searches because the City/County was paying for the stadium workers and they refused to pay people to conduct the searches. I know in Buffalo, the County picks up the maintenance costs of the Ralph; I always assumed the security was included in that cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I really wish some folks could live in my world for a week. I think they might reach a slightly different understanding. How do you know they have never stopped anything? You going to wear 40 pounds of Semtex vest through a pat down line? That invasion of privacy thing is about lame, to me. How little it takes for people to be offended. Breaking down my door with a ram and searching my house without cause is invasion of privacy. Trying to prevent, by any manner, a most likely mass casualty scenario with precedent all over the world is not necessarily, to me, an evil thing. 476063[/snapback] And you're the exact type of person they're targeting with these "feel good" window dressings. Placate the masses, regardless of effectiveness. Maybe if you did a little research into security, you'd realize how ridiculous this measure is, "privacy" or not. I highly reocmmend reading some of Bruce Schneier's articles: http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram.html Crypto-gram comes out once a month and is a must-read, IMHO. Or one of his books, specifically this one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 It'll open up your eyes, assuming you're willing to have them opened. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 And you're the exact type of person they're targeting with these "feel good" window dressings. Placate the masses, regardless of effectiveness. Maybe if you did a little research into security, you'd realize how ridiculous this measure is, "privacy" or not. I highly reocmmend reading some of Bruce Schneier's articles: http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram.html Crypto-gram comes out once a month and is a must-read, IMHO. Or one of his books, specifically this one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 It'll open up your eyes, assuming you're willing to have them opened. CW 476069[/snapback] Right. I'm such a scardy cat lemming willing to believe anything I'm told. Thanks for opening my eyes to my self induced folly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Right. I'm such a scardy cat lemming willing to believe anything I'm told. Thanks for opening my eyes to my self induced folly. 476076[/snapback] Way to make a comment without even reading the articles or book I said would open up your eyes. Warning! ID-ten-T error. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Way to make a comment without even reading the articles or book I said would open up your eyes. Warning! ID-ten-T error. CW 476080[/snapback] This is one of those times when it's alot better to not continue your current line. The person you are having the conversation with is INFINITELY more qualified on the subject matter than you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Breaking down my door with a ram and searching my house without cause is invasion of privacy. Trying to prevent, by any manner, a most likely mass casualty scenario with precedent all over the world is not necessarily, to me, an evil thing. 476063[/snapback] Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 This is one of those times when it's alot better to not continue your current line. The person you are having the conversation with is INFINITELY more qualified on the subject matter than you are. 476093[/snapback] I still disagree. You're spending money to fight against one specific attack. So now, instead of someone bringing the bomb to an NFL game, they'll bring a bomb to a college game. Or a basketball game. Or a subway. Or a Broadway show. You're simply displacing the attack vector, not stopping the attack. In essence, you're wasting $25,000,000/year. I'm against the personal privacy portion of it as well, but even if you take that out of the equation it still doesn't make sense. Or do we only care about football because that's the sport we go to most often? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 And you're the exact type of person they're targeting with these "feel good" window dressings. Placate the masses, regardless of effectiveness. Maybe if you did a little research into security, you'd realize how ridiculous this measure is, "privacy" or not. 476069[/snapback] I appreciate the point you're trying to make, and you may very well have a valid argument, but you probably picked the absolute worst poster to take that tone with. He does that kind of stuff for a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 14, 2005 Author Share Posted October 14, 2005 This is one of those times when it's alot better to not continue your current line. The person you are having the conversation with is INFINITELY more qualified on the subject matter than you are. 476093[/snapback] If there was a word stronger than infinitely, I'd use it here. However, I believe you've got that covered AD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I still disagree. You're spending money to fight against one specific attack. So now, instead of someone bringing the bomb to an NFL game, they'll bring a bomb to a college game. Or a basketball game. Or a subway. Or a Broadway show. You're simply displacing the attack vector, not stopping the attack. In essence, you're wasting $25,000,000/year. I'm against the personal privacy portion of it as well, but even if you take that out of the equation it still doesn't make sense. CW 476104[/snapback] I'm not saying anything about that portion of your argument. But you're literally having a discussion with someone who is a paid EXPERT in the very field and telling him to open his eyes. Dude lives this stuff. For guys like us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I appreciate the point you're trying to make, and you may very well have a valid argument, but you probably picked the absolute worst poster to take that tone with. He does that kind of stuff for a living. 476105[/snapback] I do this sort of thing for a living in IT; yes, no lives are affecetd but this is an issue of risk/reward that just so happens to be one of personal privacy as well. I'm willing to dismiss the personal privacy portion of it and address it purely on risk/reward. What they NFL patdowns do are the equivelent of spending a lot of money to secure yourself against one specific threat instead of creating a global solution that minimizes risk against multiple different attacks. Let's look at a home security solution. Let's say you buy a 24" thick solid steel door with 14 locks, no glass, and an electric doorknob that shocks and kills anyone who touches it while the alarm is set. This door costs $50,000. Unfortunately, your side door is a rotting peice of wood, you have a broken basement window, and there's a patio door with a broken lock. Instead of spending the money to make all of your entrances more secure, you focused on one specific threat -- the front door -- to the exclusion of all others. Maybe I'm not making my point very clear (I'm going on 2 hours sleep due to said job...), so it's entirely possible... CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I'm not saying anything about that portion of your argument. But you're literally having a discussion with someone who is a paid EXPERT in the very field and telling him to open his eyes. Dude lives this stuff. For guys like us. 476109[/snapback] The articles from the guy I said to read is also a paid EXPERT in that field... He's been a consultant on the airport security systems for example (amongst a ton of other things). Different experts can have different opinions on the same topics. I happen to agree with Bruce's. I'll shut up now. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Unfortunately, your side door is a rotting peice of wood, you have a broken basement window, and there's a patio door with a broken lock. Instead of spending the money to make all of your entrances more secure, you focused on one specific threat -- the front door -- to the exclusion of all others. 476114[/snapback] Instead of putting the focus on the front door, think of it as focussing on finding a better neighborhood in which to live - that way you can leave doors unlocked and not worry about it. Both can solve the problem, but they are two entirely different ways to attack it. A pat down at an NFL stadium isn't going to end terrorism, but it can still serve as a deterrent IMO. If it doesn't, what's the point of metal detectors for airline passengers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I do this sort of thing for a living in IT; yes, no lives are affecetd but this is an issue of risk/reward that just so happens to be one of personal privacy as well. I'm willing to dismiss the personal privacy portion of it and address it purely on risk/reward. What they NFL patdowns do are the equivelent of spending a lot of money to secure yourself against one specific threat instead of creating a global solution that minimizes risk against multiple different attacks. Let's look at a home security solution. Let's say you buy a 24" thick solid steel door with 14 locks, no glass, and an electric doorknob that shocks and kills anyone who touches it while the alarm is set. This door costs $50,000. Unfortunately, your side door is a rotting peice of wood, you have a broken basement window, and there's a patio door with a broken lock. Instead of spending the money to make all of your entrances more secure, you focused on one specific threat -- the front door -- to the exclusion of all others. Maybe I'm not making my point very clear (I'm going on 2 hours sleep due to said job...), so it's entirely possible... CW 476114[/snapback] If you can't fix your whole house should you just give up and not fix anything? Our "whole house" is pretty big. There is no way anyone could/can fix it all. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I'm not saying anything about that portion of your argument. But you're literally having a discussion with someone who is a paid EXPERT in the very field and telling him to open his eyes. Dude lives this stuff. For guys like us. 476109[/snapback] Well I'll step on some toes here... I certainly agree with Fez's points. At the moment he makes a lot more sense than anything Ghost o' Bib has said. Pretty much the point he's making is that the pat downs add zero or very minimal security to our lives. Certainly the security added is no where near worth the amount spent on it. If a terrorist wants to blow people up, he will, and a (well publicized) pat-down is probably not going to hinder them. I'm sure there are many ways to get bombs into a stadium besides carrying it inside your coat. And if its small enough to fit in your coat I'm sure you'd be very happy just to kill the crowd of people in line around you waiting to get a pat down. Pat downs are a waste of money placebo that in all reality do not help anybody and add a lot of inconvenience to the fans of the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 The articles from the guy I said to read is also a paid EXPERT in that field... He's been a consultant on the airport security systems for example (amongst a ton of other things). Different experts can have different opinions on the same topics. I happen to agree with Bruce's. I'll shut up now. CW 476119[/snapback] Holy Christ, you are in so far over your head, there's really no use trying to explain it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 and it didn't appear that anyone was being patted down at the Club Seats / Luxury Box entrances; it sure does appear that the whole point of this (in Buffalo and league-wide) is to increase concession stand revenues. I'm sure the reasoning for no patdowns at the high fallutin entrance is something along the lines of "a terrorist wouldn't buy an expensive ticket". 476055[/snapback] Wrong. I've been searched closely every game so far this year, upon entering my Club. No food or even a bottle of spring water is allowed. Keep perpetuating the hysteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 If you can't fix your whole house should you just give up and not fix anything? Our "whole house" is pretty big. There is no way anyone could/can fix it all. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything? 476123[/snapback] Huh? Thats not at all what he said. He said, spend a small amount of money on each door in your house fixing each as best you can, instead of spending all of the money on just your front door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts