Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

London Tube Dangerous for Technophiles?

Posted by Zonk on from the don't-look-suspicious dept.

TsukiKage writes "Traveling on the London Tube is dangerous these days, it seems - and not because of terrorists. Quick as ever to try and protect against the attack that has just happened, zealous police will detain you at the drop of a hat." From the article: "The next train is scheduled to arrive in a few minutes. As other people drift on to the platform, I sit down against the wall with my rucksack still on my back. I check for messages on my phone, then take out a printout of an article about Wikipedia from inside my jacket and begin to read. The train enters the station. Uniformed police officers appear on the platform and surround me ... They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act."

8 of 971 comments (clear)

  1. Re:the defense of liberty by hardcode57 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    'Give me liberty or give me death.'

    I guess you think that Hitler shouldn't have been fought.

    I really, genuinely, and profoundly, despise you.

  2. Re:the defense of liberty by xs650 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Troll my ass, do you really want security wasting their time making purely random checks?

  3. We're completely missing the point here... by teutonic_leech · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Okay, just for the record: I live in the U.S. and am for sure no Saddam-lover, but here it goes: We are completely missing the point when it comes to terrorism. When Saddam Hussein was still running Iraq he had a very unique approach to dealing with terrorist attacks stemming from the neighboring Iran (who he was in war with for close to a decade). After an attack he basically had all family members of the suicide bomber killed - one after the other! Now, that might sound harsh, but trust me, it's a war out there and Saddam's approach worked like a charm.

    I've got Karma to burn, so I thought I throw this out here...

  4. why do we have to give up any freedoms? by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    how does guarding a water supply inhibit my freedoms?

    when i say that "you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealistic trolls completely miss the point, as i said above, you are just demonstrating exactly what i mean: there is no automatic tension between security and freedom

    you completely miss the point

    because the tension between security and freedoms is one you assume, not one that actually exists

    now there ARE stupid security moves which inhibit freedom, but there is no menace behind them: there is no agent smith manipulating terrorist attacks to steal your freedoms... this is paranoid schizophrenia

    what there IS instead is stupid people in the government, who don't think things through... but they mean well

    they DO mean well... it's an issue of trust, and some people would rather believe people in the us/ british govt are sith lords rather than just bumbling fools

    to think this is paranoid schizophrenia, not wisdom

    we don't live in a hollywood b-level movie plot

    a lack of basic trust in the essential good will of your fellow human being is NOT wisdom

    my point is is that we can reeducate bumbling fools: they are on OUR side! no, really, the people in western governments are on our side... imagine that bolt of lightning, such a weird concept ;-P

    i consider someone stupid, who means well, who can be reeduated and shown the error of their ways, via democratic processes, WAY less of a threat to me than someone who has a clear and burning desire to kill me

    do you hear me now? or do you still insist on the false conflict between security and freedoms?

    there is no such conflict, it's a paranoid schizophrenic fantasy to believe in that

    so, like i said, "you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealistic trolls completely miss the point

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  5. Re:the defense of liberty by LeonGeeste · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Hey genius: a Middle Easterner is more likely to be a terrorist than you are. Focusing on Middle Easterners is an efficient way to use scarce resources. If you prefer they be less effective regarding things like, you know, your life and stuff like that, go ahead and start a campaign for costlier, less safe security procedures. Just know what you're starting.

    --
    Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
  6. you responded to me by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    are you trying to change my behavior?

    (snicker)

    of course you change human behavior

    it's why we talk to each other

    if you could never change human behavior, no one would ever talk to anyone else

    and so ends today's installment of the painfully obvious ;-P

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  7. ACLU to blaim by Bryansix · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The ACLU is the reason why 9/11 happened to begin with. If the security at the airport were allowed to act on thier suspicions then none of the hijackers would have boarded the plane.

    While random searches are not very convienant, they do make sense. It also makes sense to search only those who look suspicious. If you don't want to be searched then don't take public transportation.

  8. Re:And then... by MBraynard · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    I didn't read your post because you have no value to me.

    However, I did read the first sentence and wanted to thank you for that new name I had not heard before. 'Greedertarian.' That's pretty good - you didn't actually make that up yourself, did you?

    I think I'm going to have to start a club with that name.

    'Greedertarians' - very cool.