 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Book'em, Bush'o
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bill D Date: 06 Jan 04 - 06:14 PM I wish I knew what to think about this-- I don't LIKE the idea of databases, lack of privacy and government intrusion into more of our (and the world's) lives....but neither do I like the idea of what may happen if we do nothing. The world has changed...there are people out there that have moved from wanting to emulate us, to disliking us, to being willing to destroy any pieces of us that they can get access to. I have no doubt that, without security, there would be power plants damaged, water supplies poisoned and innocent people killed in bombings...and I mean HERE. I don't want them to do this, but I don't want G. Bush and crew to have the power that they want to defend against it, because I'll bet they will abuse it. Sure, we may have an occasional home-grown nut blow up a federal building in Oklahoma, but so far, most of the guys who want to destroy us have funny accents and bow to Mecca 5 times a day. What about the millions of perfectly lovely Muslims who are horrified by this and would never dream of terrorism? I dunno....I hope they are not driven into the ranks of America-haters by new security measures that may catch NO one. I truly wonder what would be happening if Gore had gotten 5000 more votes in Florida, and some Democrat were making these decisions! I suspect that many of the same *decisions* would be made, but with an entirely different slant and explanation. It is scary to see how sanctimonius and smug some administartion officials can seem, even when they are doing 'technically' the needed thing. There are ways to sooth the waters when doing something distasteful, but this administration has a pretty heavy-handed approach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG Date: 06 Jan 04 - 05:19 PM I wasn't trying to make a very precise case, Wolfgang. I was simply saying the statement "the innocent have nothing to fear" is taking things too far. Any system, including the present one, have risks. And of course the two cases I mentioned happened under the existing system, not the proposed one. I have no idea which is more reliable, but my guess is that diluting a database of known suspects with a lot of people who simply passed through a checkpoint is likely to make things more difficult. I've looked at web pages from face recognision software companies and reports on the products by third parties since this thread started and they seem to regard a database of over 1000 pictures as large and one report said that if the pictures were over a year old the matching rate dropped to 50%. (I'm convinced people matching faces are going to be much better than with automated systems for many years, by the way. I don't object at all to the guy on the desk checking my picture against a set of likely suspects.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Jan 04 - 03:34 PM DMcG, your argument with the failure rate doesn't convince me at all. Even now, when I come to any country outside of the EC they routinely check my identity, look at my passport, compare my present lookings with my passport picture, sometimes they check with their databases on criminals. So neither the error rate (far larger in the present system) nor the checking of the identity are anything new. If you want to convince me that the replacement of an error prone identity check technique by a less error prone technique is something to fight against you need some more arguments. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Date: 06 Jan 04 - 02:42 PM They fingerprint and photograph criminals as part of the regular procedure. Now they will do the same to visitors. Pardon me if I see a similarity there. Maybe they should institute routine body cavity searches too. Hey, if you've got nothing up your bum, you've got nothing to worry about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,pdc Date: 06 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM One danger that no one seems to have mentioned: what will a government do with a database of fingerprints? When does the next step come, in which everyone is required to submit their fingerprints. If anyone thinks that a fingerprint database is not open to various abuses, I have a couple of bridges I'd like to sell you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Date: 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM Teribus; here's a question for you: How many terrorist attacks occurred in the United States in the two and a quarter years BEFORE 9-11? How many American citizens wee killed or injured as a result of those attacks? As for the answer to YOUR questions, a number of people died from anthrax after 9-11 as a result of infection from spores mailed or placed by "terrorists." A good many nnocent citizens have been arrested, detained, strip-searched and subjected to all sorts of humiliating treatement, all in the name of 'fighting terrorism." i call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort. A tyrannical government always finds convenient excuses to trample upn its citzens' civil rights. j Just because we have five thousand brands of cereal on our grocery store shelves and an iMac in every office doesn't make us any more noble than the worst police state overseas. I would love to know how many American citizens have been injured in their period of detainment at the Guantanamo facility...but since they have no access to lawyers or their families, there is no way of knowing...despite none of them having been formally charged with anything... If this sort of thing were perpetrated by OTHER nations, these people would be known as "hostages," but because it's the good ole U S of A, they are "suspects." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG Date: 06 Jan 04 - 11:22 AM This is the one I was originally thinking of. It was rather more than "a few months" ago! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:51 AM Well, there was a case only a month or two ago where someone was detained for weeks before being released without charge. If the authorities suspect you of being a wily terrorist, they also expect you to be trained to give a convincing account of your innocence. Its not easy to persuade them otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: freda underhill Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:46 AM WASHINGTON (Special report) - Scott McClellan announced today that President Bush has been diagnosed with Mad Cowboy Disease. The President will be quarantined, until further notice, at a psychiatric ward in Walter Reed Medical Center. Mr. McClellan said epidemiologists have traced this case of to Jenna Welch's special holiday Texas Head Cheese Bean Dip that was infected with Mad Cow disease. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: harpgirl Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:38 AM ...this is just a step towards fingerprinting everyone who travels and exerting more control over individual citizens. We no longer live in a free country. We no longer have a participative democracy. Big Brother is here! If I allow myself to notice, I am aware that most of my interactions, transactions, and activity in public places is completely recorded already. We're one step away from video in home observation, folks. Where we go on the internet, what programs we watch, how much electricity we use, et., etc. is easily accessed already. Even our grocery tapes are a full diary of our activity at this point. But hey, Doug...lets keep increasing control over our citizens. That's what a free country is about! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:33 AM As to the observation (which is true) that a number of countries of origin are not dealt with, you may or may not know that this that's going on at this time is the initiation of the program. The countries that are presently exempted (like most of Europe (but not Poland) and Japan) will be included in the program a little down the way. As to processing delays, it would seem to me that this should not slow up airport waiting time any at all. The less than a minute it takes can be (if it's set up rationally) part of the time one is standing in line to go through security anyway. To amplify or maybe clarify my comments in a previous post: When everyone is required to go through the procedure, there is no implication at all of criminality, as was implied in Cluin's comment. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:27 AM Sorry, DMcG 06 Jan 04 - 06:54 AM " if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." On the point you made regarding your hypothetical statistical failure rate. Accepting your figures and the circumstances that might cause them to be detained - I do not believe for one moment that their detention would be for longer than it took for them to prove who they said they were. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:25 AM "If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about." Did Joe McCarthy say that? HUAC? Just curious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:21 AM A question for you Peg: Subsequent to September 11th 2001, how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the United States of America, and how many American citizens have died, or been injured, as a result of those attacks? That is how effective "those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office" have been. Two-and-a-quarter years of threats and bluster by Osama from somewhere deep under-ground. What is the answer to the question Peg? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:19 AM Cluin said: Sure. And treat all visitors like criminals right off the mark. Nice welcome. It's not treating anyone like criminals. It's recognizing that there ARE going to be criminals out there, and trying to sort them out. One point is to make sure that the individual, presenting a visa, is the same person who was issued the visa overseas. This, contrary to what Peg said, is preventative in nature. It is true that this will not solve all problems, but then no measure that could be taken will solve all problems. You attack a problem by doing what can presently be done, and later try to stop up the other holes. And no set of security measures will ever give absolute protection, but that doesn't mean that the country should throw up its hands, roll its eyes, and give up. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Date: 06 Jan 04 - 10:02 AM no one sees this as yet another notch on the belt of those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office? no one remembers that 'new' laws which sprang to the fore just after 9-11 having to do with detaining suspects were already on the books and that their originators were waiting in the wings for just such a catastrophe to occur? Guantanamo: it ain't just in Cuba no more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG Date: 06 Jan 04 - 06:54 AM " if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." Not necessarily, ddw and Teribus. There are something like 35 million visitors to the US every year. Every system has a failure rate. Suppose this is 99.999% accurate. That's still 350 innocent people who get detained, jailed or whatever a year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 06 Jan 04 - 06:37 AM As ddw said - " if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." Same thing in the UK with regard to issuing ID Cards, can't for the life of me see how that infringes anybody's civil liberties, unless of course they shouldn't be here in the first place. Would this practice deter me from visiting the US - with the US$ at 1.80 to the £ - Hell No! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: LadyJean Date: 06 Jan 04 - 12:18 AM We're having a nice gang war in my neighborhood. City buses keep breaking down, and our government is spending money photographing foreign visitors to Congress. My tax dollars at work! PHOOEY!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Date: 05 Jan 04 - 11:17 PM ddw, my point was these kinds of "security" measures would have done nothing to stop the domestic terrorists. I also have asked if other countries do this. I'd like to see some evidence that this kind of thing would really be any part of a solution. It seems more of a grand gesture born of paranoid fear. Yes, we should try to prevent another Sept. 11th, but this administration hasn't even gone after the real perps. of that and now they're going to screen every qualifying traveler in and out of the States? I find it offensive and extreme. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:47 PM Computers still ain't gonna deal with the legal ramifications you brought up, brucie. (and Doug) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:41 PM Oh, DougR, you mean times have changed? (Yeah, I didn't think of that. You have lots more brains than the average Republican. I was thinking of the old ink pad and paper stuff. Thanks, Doug. Also, it's good to see you're mellowin'.) LOL Bruce M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DougR Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:19 PM Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I just read Bobert's post! We AGREE on SOMETHING! Bobert, reconsider! Please! Now I'm wondering if I was right! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DougR Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:09 PM Exactly, kat, the threat is here at home! So why not learn all you can about those who come from somewhere else? Brucie: uh, we have computers now. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: ddw Date: 05 Jan 04 - 10:02 PM Hey Kat, love your logic. You've got two problems, so you don't apply a partial solution to one because it doesn't address the second..... Did I miss something? cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Sorcha Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:43 PM IS think it is scary and sick, but I know I'm just a Commie, Pinko, Liberal Bitch.....and I am wondering what I will have to go through to get There and Back Again to UK..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: artbrooks Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:38 PM Apparently people from nations who don't need visas to visit the US (which includes the UK, Australia and New Zealand) aren't covered. Of course, that would include the shoe bomber.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Date: 05 Jan 04 - 08:33 PM It wasn't a foreigner who was found to have WMDs in Texas just recently, nor was it a foreigner who blew up the federal bldg. in Oklahoma City. Thanks for the correction on the amount, Art(brooks). I haven't seen anything about Congress specifically okaying these funds, but it's early days, yet.:-) I'd really like to hear from our friends in the UK, OZ, and elsewhere, too. And, good point, if we go out of the country, are WE, US citizens the next to be subjected to this? Doug, the war we are in is right here at home. I hope you wake up to that fact, soon, and realise the rest of it was manufactured for oil. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace Date: 05 Jan 04 - 07:20 PM I think the "20-50 sceonds to everyone's flight schedule" is a litlle optimistic--maybe by three orders of magnitude. Of course, the last time I got printed was in the late '60s. That took a day. Of course, it also involved an overnight stay courtesy of the state, a very dry sandwich and some water. They were very nice about it all. I'm sure the customs/immigration people will be, too. If you're worried, just wear thick gloves and hope no one notices. The US has a right to establish its own rules regarding people entering the country. Them's the facts, Jack. Will it be printing its own citizens when they return from abroad? That could get a little contentious for some people. And will search and seizure laws apply if they are checking a terrorist suspect and by accident discover a bank robber? Miranda law? Looks like a big can of worms, but hey, it ain't my country. All the best. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bobert Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:59 PM Stop the presses! Get Ripley on the phone! I agree with Doug on this one... Yeah, I think this can be an important police tool in the war against international criminals... Now this makes more sense than going around just wackin' and occupying other folks countries... Should have been implimented a long time ago. I have absolutely no problems. They want my pic 'er fingerprint. Heck, they've allready got 'em but they can have 'em again... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: ddw Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:33 PM Like they say, Cluin, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about. As for this being useless.... There are a lot of pretty nasty people out there whose ID particulars are already known, but they're somewhere in the world beyond the reach of U.S. security. If it stops them from coming in or catches a few of them trying to, it seems like a pretty good idea to me. The cost? About $1.50 per person per year. Seems like a bargain.... cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DougR Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:28 PM Horse pucky! Ever heard of a database? I think we will find other countries doing this to Americans soon also. I would have no objection to it. I believe Brazil is starting a similar program now. I don't believe a lot of you recognize the kind of war we are in now. If it will provide the authorities with information that will prevent a terrorist (him/her) from killing our citizens I am for it 100%. Will it? I don't know for sure, but neither does anyone else on this forum. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Date: 05 Jan 04 - 06:12 PM Sure. And treat all visitors like criminals right off the mark. Nice welcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:46 PM All you Mudcatters who like to use your real names shouldn't object to this. I think we have an absolute right to know who comes into this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: artbrooks Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:39 PM The cost, according to CNN.com, is $380 million, not billion. Is there information anywhere to indicate that Congress specifically appropriated any money for this dumb program, or is Tom Ridge planning to slush-fund it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Date: 05 Jan 04 - 05:27 PM I should explain what I meant, Amos; since the fingerprints and facial profiles will be comapred to those of known criminals already on file, the likelihood of this practice preventing terrorist activities BEFORE they happen is very unlikely... and as we have seen, some terrorists only need one opportunity to make their mark... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Amos Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:54 PM It should add nothing at all to the time of transit, if the photo and the fingerprint are all taken digitally. It could easily fit into the time wasted by people in the Customs and Immigrations queues. And I don't know that you can say it will do nothing tostop terrorism. The thing that puts the most wind up in those who move in darkness is the fear of being known, Just knowing your incontrovertible ID is on file might be a deterrent for some kinds of terrorists, if not for suicide bombers. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:24 PM I find the very idea of this practice absolutely appalling. It will do NOTHING to stop terrorism...it MIGHT allow prosecution of some drug dealers, but then, that is not the purpose being alluded to, is it? |
|
Subject: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Date: 05 Jan 04 - 04:10 PM As the editorial says, Smile, you're in America!. Foreign visitors to the US will now be fingerprinted and photographed upon arrival and, eventually, upon departure from the US. Congress has approved a budget of $330 Do any other countries do this? How do Mudcatters from elsewhere feel about this? Will it deter you from coming over to visit? Thanks, katoutraged! |
