Campy Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 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. 476125[/snapback] Take your post and apply it to airports and the airline industry. Should we remove the x-ray machines and metal detectors too? There are also many ways to get bombs into an airplane other than carrying it inside your coat.
drnykterstein Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Take your post and apply it to airports and the airline industry. Should we remove the x-ray machines and metal detectors too? There are also many ways to get bombs into an airplane other than carrying it inside your coat. 476132[/snapback] No where in this thread did anyone say metal detectors or x-ray machines were a bad idea. Pat-downs is the topic... so stick with it.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 No where in this thread did anyone say metal detectors or x-ray machines were a bad idea. Pat-downs is the topic... so stick with it. 476136[/snapback] They are, however, more of an invasion of privacy than pat-downs. Yes, even metal detectors - maybe I don't want everyone to know I have an artificial knee.
drnykterstein Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 They are, however, more of an invasion of privacy than pat-downs. Yes, even metal detectors - maybe I don't want everyone to know I have an artificial knee. 476137[/snapback] Maybe you should start your own thread complaining about airport metal detectors. Ok, I don't have an answer for you. There have to be limits on things. I think its ok to jail someone for stealing, but the death sentence is going to far. In the same way, there are some security measures that are needed, but pat-downs are going to far.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 14, 2005 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] On the one hand, we've got someone who has done operational planning for counter-NBC-terrorism work, and has since graduated to policy planning on the national level. On the other hand, we have some schmuck who's read books by a cryptographer. You're REALLY out of your depth, Fezmid. I've read Schneier. I've also spoken with Ghost of BiB. It's not even that one's right and the other's wrong; they're simply not even discussing the same topics. And even if they were...reading Schneier does not YOU an expert make. Though I have no doubt that, were Schneier to discuss counter-terrorism security, he'd certainly be referencing some of Ghost of BiB's work...
Stevie Ray Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 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. 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. 476125[/snapback] So if a maniac with a gun gets caught before entering a stadium, do you honestly believe no lives were saved? If even one life is saved, is that not worth going through this preventive measure?
Campy Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Pat-downs is the topic... so stick with it. 476136[/snapback] Encroachment upon civil liberties is the topic. Answer the question.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Maybe you should start your own thread complaining about airport metal detectors. Ok, I don't have an answer for you. There have to be limits on things. I think its ok to jail someone for stealing, but the death sentence is going to far. In the same way, there are some security measures that are needed, but pat-downs are going to far. 476143[/snapback] Actually, the balance between security and invasion of privacy is the topic, not pat-downs. As for pat-downs going way too far...why? Because someone has to physically put their hands on your person? While I may agree with your original statement to the effect that pat-downs are not a cost-effective means of security...how does that equate to "going way too far" and being a violation of privacy?
Mark VI Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 On the one hand, we've got someone who has done operational planning for counter-NBC-terrorism work, and has since graduated to policy planning on the national level. On the other hand, we have some schmuck who's read books by a cryptographer. You're REALLY out of your depth, Fezmid. I've read Schneier. I've also spoken with Ghost of BiB. It's not even that one's right and the other's wrong; they're simply not even discussing the same topics. And even if they were...reading Schneier does not YOU an expert make. Though I have no doubt that, were Schneier to discuss counter-terrorism security, he'd certainly be referencing some of Ghost of BiB's work... 476144[/snapback] Reminds me of Annie Hall, Tom. WOODY ALLEN: You don't know anything about Marshall McLuhan's work-- MAN: Really? Really? I happen to teach a class at Columbia called TV, Media and Culture, so I think that my insights into Mr. McLuhan, well, have a great deal of validity. WOODY ALLEN: Oh, do you? MAN: Yeah. WOODY ALLEN: Oh, that's funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here. Come over here for a second? MAN: Oh-- WOODY ALLEN: Tell him. MARSHALL McLUHAN: -- I heard, I heard what you were saying. You, you know nothing of my work. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing. WOODY ALLEN: Boy, if life were only like this.
Fezmid Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 On the one hand, we've got someone who has done operational planning for counter-NBC-terrorism work, and has since graduated to policy planning on the national level. On the other hand, we have some schmuck who's read books by a cryptographer. You're REALLY out of your depth, Fezmid. I've read Schneier. I've also spoken with Ghost of BiB. It's not even that one's right and the other's wrong; they're simply not even discussing the same topics. And even if they were...reading Schneier does not YOU an expert make. Though I have no doubt that, were Schneier to discuss counter-terrorism security, he'd certainly be referencing some of Ghost of BiB's work... 476144[/snapback] Well, I guess there's no sense in having the thread then since there's nothing to discuss. BiB is right, any contrary opinion is wrong, thread over. If we can get Tom Donahoe to post, we can close the entire TSW board since he's an expert in the NFL and nobody can have an opinion contrary to that of Donahoe the Expert. CW
OGTEleven Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 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. 476131[/snapback] The problem is that in case he is railing against, there are the equivalent of millions of doors. It is a given that we cannot get to them all. He is saying "Why bother with the most likely door?", but then he is saying protect then all. That's impossible.
drnykterstein Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Encroachment upon civil liberties is the topic. Answer the question. 476148[/snapback] Hmm.. and lets pretend there were no pat downs. Would that lawsuit still exist? I am talking on pat-downs. Money-wasting, do-nothing, never-helping-anybody, time-wasting pat downs.
Ghost of BiB Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 This probably shouldn't go much, if any further. I fully agree with the idea of risk vs. cost vs. reward. That is why I am against, and have recommended against outlandish expenditures for more fire trucks paid for out of Homeland Security dollars. If you think about it, if you are to the point where you need more fire trucks everywhere, you did something wrong to get to that point. Fire trucks = failure. I think there should be pat downs or some type (in my idea of a perfect world) of passive detection (not that hard to do, BTW) at any public venue where you have large numbers of people corralled in a small space, like a sporting event. The dollar cost for a simple pat down is relatively small, and the biggest argument against it is that people don't like it. The idea here is deterrence and the mentality of a suicide attacker trying to achieve a certain effect. I'm not saying a suicide bomber would NOT blow himself up in line, but I would argue that it would not be the desired target effect. Much better to blow up in a close crowd of people on National TV. What is something that might deter a suicide bomber? Not much - except fear of failure. A terrorist with a handgun, after the media dust settles, is not going to create much impact different from some everyday American nutcase. That type of effect is actually detrimental to their strategic philosophy - can make them look very impotent and non-threatening. Taking out a section of a stadium and about 30 people makes a statement, and gets remembered much longer. Just some thoughts, but I've thought about this stuff a lot.
JasoninMT Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 I don't agree pat downs should happen in airports either btw. Its a weak security measure and causes way more problems than it solves. Sorry but I'm sure there are better ways to do things. Anyways, why do football games need security like that? Were too many people getting shot or stabbed at games or something? 475920[/snapback] I am not saying I agree or disagree with the policy... I'm just saying it's not illegal, and I don't see grounds for a lawsuit... Funny thing about the whole "freedom" thing in this country is you only really have it when dealing directly with the government... otherwise it's a private matter and businesses can pretty much do what they want as long as it doesn't violate any laws. But everyone always wants to apply the bill of rights to everything... I/we/you do NOT have the right to free speech inside a business.... I/we/you do NOT have the right to keep and bear arms wherever I am... I/we/you do NOT have the right to... Those rights apply on "public" property... And if the county leases a public stadium to a football team or a concert promoter... it isn't public property anymore... As for whether I agree with the policy... No, I don't... but I wouldn't let that stop me from attending a Bills game... As far as whether they should be able to do it at the airport... well, there's a sticky situation... because now those folks are government agents (TSA's are part of homeland security)... and I believe officers have those rights... But only IF they have reasonable doubt... and failing a metal detector constitutes reasonable doubt.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Well, I guess there's no sense in having the thread then since there's nothing to discuss. BiB is right, any contrary opinion is wrong, thread over. If we can get Tom Donahoe to post, we can close the entire TSW board since he's an expert in the NFL and nobody can have an opinion contrary to that of Donahoe the Expert. CW 476158[/snapback] Do you have to work at completely missing the point, or is it just a natural talent?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Just some thoughts, but I've thought about this stuff a lot. 476167[/snapback] Well I've read Friedman's op-eds in the NY Times, so you don't know what you're talking about...
Ghost of BiB Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Well, I guess there's no sense in having the thread then since there's nothing to discuss. BiB is right, any contrary opinion is wrong, thread over. If we can get Tom Donahoe to post, we can close the entire TSW board since he's an expert in the NFL and nobody can have an opinion contrary to that of Donahoe the Expert. CW 476158[/snapback] They don't speak for me, I speak for me. I actually have people around here too that know something about me, some actual friends (yes, I have one or two, and I share a lot more with them than I would ever here), as does most anyone else posting. Were I to post something about internet security to you, based on what I read from my author of choice, I think you might call me out if you viewed the post from the perspective of someone working in the field, you could easily see the counter-argument. I didn't call you out, you basically called me an idiot because you read a book and a newsletter. You attacked my opinion and now you want to quit because someone has a different one from you. I still hope you enjoy the recipes. I really don't take this personally. I'm used to it. I'm just not a big media fan and I seriously question many books that are out there right now. If I weren't so lazy, I might write one. Why not? Someone would read it and quote it somewhere.
VABills Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 This probably shouldn't go much, if any further. I fully agree with the idea of risk vs. cost vs. reward. That is why I am against, and have recommended against outlandish expenditures for more fire trucks paid for out of Homeland Security dollars. If you think about it, if you are to the point where you need more fire trucks everywhere, you did something wrong to get to that point. Fire trucks = failure. I think there should be pat downs or some type (in my idea of a perfect world) of passive detection (not that hard to do, BTW) at any public venue where you have large numbers of people corralled in a small space, like a sporting event. The dollar cost for a simple pat down is relatively small, and the biggest argument against it is that people don't like it. The idea here is deterrence and the mentality of a suicide attacker trying to achieve a certain effect. I'm not saying a suicide bomber would NOT blow himself up in line, but I would argue that it would not be the desired target effect. Much better to blow up in a close crowd of people on National TV. What is something that might deter a suicide bomber? Not much - except fear of failure. A terrorist with a handgun, after the media dust settles, is not going to create much impact different from some everyday American nutcase. That type of effect is actually detrimental to their strategic philosophy - can make them look very impotent and non-threatening. Taking out a section of a stadium and about 30 people makes a statement, and gets remembered much longer. Just some thoughts, but I've thought about this stuff a lot. 476167[/snapback] Fez keep going. BiB acts all tough and stuff, but he really doesn't know this stuff. I have met him, he really is the fat slob making donuts at the local Krispy Kreme. He might get a customer in on occassion who is a sergeant who makes coffee for the generals at the Pentagon, therefore he feels qualified to know all this stuff. He really is a short bus, retatta chef in his dreams.
JasoninMT Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 ... Why not? Someone would read it and quote it somewhere. 476184[/snapback] Or worse yet, they'd misquote it...
Fezmid Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 You attacked my opinion and now you want to quit because someone has a different one from you. I attacked your "opinion" because all you said was "I wish people could walk in my shoes," and followed up with, "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." Your more recent post (re: firetrucks, etc) contained actual information that I appreciated reading, but I didn't get that beforehand. And nobody should take anything posted on a message board personally; families have disagreements all the time, doesn't mean you get pissed at them forever. Well, in some families I guess it does... But I digress... I wonder if this thread will be active tomorrow. I'm going out of town but will check for it again tomorrow or Sunday. I'm not quitting. CW
Recommended Posts