That's a very good and very relevant question. My brother's best friend moved out of state many years ago. Shortly after arriving at his new home, he financed a new car. A year or two later, he wanted to move back to his home town. Unfortunately, the bank that financed his car wouldn't let him take it out of state, and he still owed more on the car than it was worth, thanks to the instant depreciation when you drive a car off the lot, so he couldn't just sell it. In a case like this, you could possibly get away with moving with car and not telling the bank (just have the bill sent to a service that will automatically forward your mail and pay the bill electronically), but if they had GPS tracking on the car...
As I understand, it doesn't work that way where I live. Marital infidelity is not a crime, and therefore the concept of "guilt" is irrelevant in divorce cases here.
Now if they were putting the tracker into shoes/clothing/wallet/purse, that would be a violation because they are tracking the person, not the car.
No...they would be tracking the shoes/clothing/wallet/purse. How is that any different?
Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. But if putting a GPS in a car (an item of personal property) isn't tracking a person, how is putting a GPS in shoes/clothing/wallet/purse (more personal property) any different?
My ex started out just mildly paranoid, angry, jealous and destructive and some years later with the death of her mother and birth of our son around the same time, she just started ramping up the bat shit crazy side of her personality.
In other words, all the warning signs were there; you just chose to ignore them. FWIW, I've been there and done that, too.
Sorry, but you have no right to privacy from me when you are using my property.
I'm not sure that the courts would agree with you for all possible interpretations of that statement. I don't have links handy, and I'm too lazy to look them up at the moment, but I there have been plenty of legal cases where pervs owning houses/apartments/stores put video cameras in bathrooms or dressing rooms, and -- even though that was, in fact, their property -- the courts ruled that there was indeed both an expectation of and a right to privacy in those settings which trumped the ownership rights.
I just wonder why the genius's at the TSA has taken more than a year to consider this a "Threat".
They had to wait for the populace to grow accustomed to the AIT scanners before rolling out the next security scanner. I can't wait to see how expensive and degrading it will be </sarc>
Cool. Don't fly, then. Meanwhile, all of us who value the 4th Amendment right to be secure in our persons and effects, even if flying on a commercial airliner, will still enjoy our liberties.
I can't wait until we get heart extractors in airports.... you know, to find the terrorists.
Apparently, they've already been testing them at TSA H.Q. Just look at Janet Napolitano,John Pistole and Blogger Bob if you want to know how they work -- it's already pretty obvious that they've got no heart.
So you're trading one certain tumor for the risk of more tumors.
You raise some good points to consider, but in my opinion, the "You have a tumor now. We would like to discover where it's at so we can kill it. However, the imaging process *may* cause cancer some time down the road. Maybe. If something else doesn't kill you first." decision is pretty easy.
I would like to point out that the people on Flight 93 all died on 9/11
Yes, but that's because the terrorists were allowed to take control of the airplane due to the prevailing mindset at the time that complacency would get you an all-expense-paid trip to Cuba and a subsequent flight home. We know better now, and consequently, I really doubt that a terrorist is going to make it to the cockpit now, much less through the locked door.
There's a job that can be done by security forces, and can be done well by security forces: prevent civilians from getting into a situation where they need more than daily tools to survive.
There's where I fundamentally disagree with you. I don't want a nanny state. IIRC, the courts have ruled that the police aren't there to protect you; they are there to arrest the suspects *after a crime has already been committed.* That means that it is my responsibility alone to insure my personal safety, and I am okay with that. Unfortunately, I see too many others who are willing to abdicate their responsibility to provide and ensure their own welfare off to the government, and that's an impossible task.
That means we can carry loaded firearms in the cabin to shoot the perps...
I'm cool with that. Just keep in mind that I'll be carrying my Beretta FS92, loaded with alternating rounds of snakeshot and Federal Hydro-Shok bullets.
Let's see...my wife and daughter sitting next to me, and some whack job trying to bring down a plane...yeah, I'll attempt to take down a hijacker with my bare hands. Heck, even if I was flying alone, I'd still give it a try. I might fail 99% of the time, but I'll fail 100% of the time if I don't even try. I'll take a 1% chance of success over a 0% chance, every single time. As Iron Maiden sang back in the '80s, "If you're gonna die, die with your boots on."
And a few years ago, wired.com (IIRC, I don't have the link handy right now) talked to an explosives expert who said that the process is time-consuming and very, very smelly. You won't be able to mix up a batch of your favorite binary explosive while sitting in the passenger compartment, and you aren't likely to be left alone in the airplane's john for a couple of hours while the strong odor of the requisite organic compounds wafts out to the other airline passengers, either.
In other words, the threat of binary liquid explosives being brewed in-flight is yet more nonsense fear mongering, courtesy of an out-of-control bureaucracy that has a vested interest in keeping you afraid. And you bought into it.
...I'd be surprised if they don't want to expand their coverage to trans and buses as soon as it's feasible.
Have you been living under a rock the last six months? They are already moving that direction. Here's a short list of links, for your reading/viewing pleasure:
Pressure sensor. Cabin pressure in flight is something like 7000 feet (I used to have a watch with an altimeter in it), so even a Faraday cage wouldn't guarantee detonation. If some organization wants to blow up an airliner bad enough, they WILL blow it up, because they only have to find a crack to slip through once. Airport security has to get it right EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. How likely is that?
If you want reasonable security, it can be provided very, very cheaply. Walk through Central Park at noon with enough bling to attract any thief worthy of the title. Walk through Central Park again at midnight when nobody else is around. Will you most likely be mugged at noon or at midnight? Noon, of course, right? Certainly not, because a thief is very unlikely to mug someone in a crowded area when there are lots of people around to intervene -- or at the very least, to provide a description to the cops.
Applying this principle to airline security, consider Flight 93, the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. The would-be terrorists in these incidents were all stopped by other passengers on the airplanes because they had a vested interest in the safety of the flight. No one on board an airliner today is going to sit there and behave like a good little sheeple while a terrorist does whatever it is he intends to do because the paradigm changed on 9/11. TSA doesn't provide any meaningful security; you and I do.
If you want to be safe on an airliner, stop expecting the government to take care of you, and learn to take care of yourself. The government sucks at that job. You, on the other hand, can be as good at it as you want to be. But you are seriously fooling yourself if you think TSA will -- or even CAN -- keep you safe.
Well...first off, that's what Afghanistan said to the U.S. after 9/11. That didn't work out so well for them. Second, turnabout's fair play, I guess*
*Actually, I think both legal interpretations are egregious. IMHO, and I'm not a lawyer and certainly not a lawyer specializing in legal jurisdictions involving multiple countries, but if the data center isn't in the U.S., then Microsoft E.U. shouldn't be bound by U.S. laws. Likewise, Yahoo should not have been held liable for the Nazi merchandise viewed in France. What is a company to do when laws in one nation conflict with laws in another? In that case, there's no way to win.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very good and very relevant question. My brother's best friend moved out of state many years ago. Shortly after arriving at his new home, he financed a new car. A year or two later, he wanted to move back to his home town. Unfortunately, the bank that financed his car wouldn't let him take it out of state, and he still owed more on the car than it was worth, thanks to the instant depreciation when you drive a car off the lot, so he couldn't just sell it. In a case like this, you could possibly get away with moving with car and not telling the bank (just have the bill sent to a service that will automatically forward your mail and pay the bill electronically), but if they had GPS tracking on the car...
As I understand, it doesn't work that way where I live. Marital infidelity is not a crime, and therefore the concept of "guilt" is irrelevant in divorce cases here.
Now if they were putting the tracker into shoes/clothing/wallet/purse, that would be a violation because they are tracking the person, not the car.
No...they would be tracking the shoes/clothing/wallet/purse. How is that any different?
Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. But if putting a GPS in a car (an item of personal property) isn't tracking a person, how is putting a GPS in shoes/clothing/wallet/purse (more personal property) any different?
My ex started out just mildly paranoid, angry, jealous and destructive and some years later with the death of her mother and birth of our son around the same time, she just started ramping up the bat shit crazy side of her personality.
In other words, all the warning signs were there; you just chose to ignore them. FWIW, I've been there and done that, too.
Wrong.
The line may be much more grey and blurry with your family than it is with perfect strangers, but it certainly exists.
Sorry, but you have no right to privacy from me when you are using my property.
I'm not sure that the courts would agree with you for all possible interpretations of that statement. I don't have links handy, and I'm too lazy to look them up at the moment, but I there have been plenty of legal cases where pervs owning houses/apartments/stores put video cameras in bathrooms or dressing rooms, and -- even though that was, in fact, their property -- the courts ruled that there was indeed both an expectation of and a right to privacy in those settings which trumped the ownership rights.
Not all of us. But speaking of the majority...yeah, you're right. Sigh.
I just wonder why the genius's at the TSA has taken more than a year to consider this a "Threat".
They had to wait for the populace to grow accustomed to the AIT scanners before rolling out the next security scanner. I can't wait to see how expensive and degrading it will be </sarc>
Cool. Don't fly, then. Meanwhile, all of us who value the 4th Amendment right to be secure in our persons and effects, even if flying on a commercial airliner, will still enjoy our liberties.
Was GPP wrong? Do you have anything intelligent to say to contradict him? No? Then kindly STFU. Thanks.
I can't wait until we get heart extractors in airports.... you know, to find the terrorists.
Apparently, they've already been testing them at TSA H.Q. Just look at Janet Napolitano,John Pistole and Blogger Bob if you want to know how they work -- it's already pretty obvious that they've got no heart.
So you're trading one certain tumor for the risk of more tumors.
You raise some good points to consider, but in my opinion, the "You have a tumor now. We would like to discover where it's at so we can kill it. However, the imaging process *may* cause cancer some time down the road. Maybe. If something else doesn't kill you first." decision is pretty easy.
Well, at least TFS proves to us that the /. monkeys aren't quite ready to duplicate the works of Shakespeare yet ;)
I would like to point out that the people on Flight 93 all died on 9/11
Yes, but that's because the terrorists were allowed to take control of the airplane due to the prevailing mindset at the time that complacency would get you an all-expense-paid trip to Cuba and a subsequent flight home. We know better now, and consequently, I really doubt that a terrorist is going to make it to the cockpit now, much less through the locked door.
There's a job that can be done by security forces, and can be done well by security forces: prevent civilians from getting into a situation where they need more than daily tools to survive.
There's where I fundamentally disagree with you. I don't want a nanny state. IIRC, the courts have ruled that the police aren't there to protect you; they are there to arrest the suspects *after a crime has already been committed.* That means that it is my responsibility alone to insure my personal safety, and I am okay with that. Unfortunately, I see too many others who are willing to abdicate their responsibility to provide and ensure their own welfare off to the government, and that's an impossible task.
That means we can carry loaded firearms in the cabin to shoot the perps...
I'm cool with that. Just keep in mind that I'll be carrying my Beretta FS92, loaded with alternating rounds of snakeshot and Federal Hydro-Shok bullets.
Let's see...my wife and daughter sitting next to me, and some whack job trying to bring down a plane...yeah, I'll attempt to take down a hijacker with my bare hands. Heck, even if I was flying alone, I'd still give it a try. I might fail 99% of the time, but I'll fail 100% of the time if I don't even try. I'll take a 1% chance of success over a 0% chance, every single time. As Iron Maiden sang back in the '80s, "If you're gonna die, die with your boots on."
And a few years ago, wired.com (IIRC, I don't have the link handy right now) talked to an explosives expert who said that the process is time-consuming and very, very smelly. You won't be able to mix up a batch of your favorite binary explosive while sitting in the passenger compartment, and you aren't likely to be left alone in the airplane's john for a couple of hours while the strong odor of the requisite organic compounds wafts out to the other airline passengers, either.
In other words, the threat of binary liquid explosives being brewed in-flight is yet more nonsense fear mongering, courtesy of an out-of-control bureaucracy that has a vested interest in keeping you afraid. And you bought into it.
...I'd be surprised if they don't want to expand their coverage to trans and buses as soon as it's feasible.
Have you been living under a rock the last six months? They are already moving that direction. Here's a short list of links, for your reading/viewing pleasure:
...and again.
In train stations.
In a bus station.
Video of the Savannah, GA train station search.
TSA's spin^Wresponse to the Savannah, GA search.
What a VIPR operation is.
Napolitano musing about expanding the scope of TSA's operations before the above searches happened.
HTH!
I wouldn't take that bet, even if you gave me million to one odds.
Pressure sensor. Cabin pressure in flight is something like 7000 feet (I used to have a watch with an altimeter in it), so even a Faraday cage wouldn't guarantee detonation. If some organization wants to blow up an airliner bad enough, they WILL blow it up, because they only have to find a crack to slip through once. Airport security has to get it right EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. How likely is that?
Bullcrap.
If you want reasonable security, it can be provided very, very cheaply. Walk through Central Park at noon with enough bling to attract any thief worthy of the title. Walk through Central Park again at midnight when nobody else is around. Will you most likely be mugged at noon or at midnight? Noon, of course, right? Certainly not, because a thief is very unlikely to mug someone in a crowded area when there are lots of people around to intervene -- or at the very least, to provide a description to the cops.
Applying this principle to airline security, consider Flight 93, the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. The would-be terrorists in these incidents were all stopped by other passengers on the airplanes because they had a vested interest in the safety of the flight. No one on board an airliner today is going to sit there and behave like a good little sheeple while a terrorist does whatever it is he intends to do because the paradigm changed on 9/11. TSA doesn't provide any meaningful security; you and I do.
If you want to be safe on an airliner, stop expecting the government to take care of you, and learn to take care of yourself. The government sucks at that job. You, on the other hand, can be as good at it as you want to be. But you are seriously fooling yourself if you think TSA will -- or even CAN -- keep you safe.
Well...first off, that's what Afghanistan said to the U.S. after 9/11. That didn't work out so well for them. Second, turnabout's fair play, I guess*
*Actually, I think both legal interpretations are egregious. IMHO, and I'm not a lawyer and certainly not a lawyer specializing in legal jurisdictions involving multiple countries, but if the data center isn't in the U.S., then Microsoft E.U. shouldn't be bound by U.S. laws. Likewise, Yahoo should not have been held liable for the Nazi merchandise viewed in France. What is a company to do when laws in one nation conflict with laws in another? In that case, there's no way to win.
waging a campaign to end a human right in order to stop something is a bit ridiculous isn't it.
It sounds like standard TSA policy to me.
Nice :)
So you mean it works like /.'s comment moderation system?