Terror suspect turned out to be Welsh insurance agent...
-
Maybe it's a questions of expectations. I've done a fair amount of air travel within, to and from the US since 9/11 and frankly, I'd rather a few false positives than one missed negative. I've stood in line waiting for screening, had my luggage searched and my hands and shoes swabbed for explosive residues and been amazed at the way some people erupt in fury when asked to submit to a simple procedure. Likewise, I've been amazed when the people having to perform those procedures feel the need to apologise. If my having to let someone swab my hands will help to ensure that I arrive at my destination in one piece I'm happy to submit provided it's a procedure everyone is subject to. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
I have no problem with these security procedure, its things like if someone is wrongly suspected of being a terrorist and is barred from various things (possibly including travelling on any airline), under the homeland security legistlation they have no redress even if information is patently incorrect. The tigress is here :-D
-
Rob Manderson wrote: You seem to be conflating a comment about security procedures into changing the burden That exactly not. Things like patriot act, easier search warrants etc for "suspected terrorists", .... Taken each for itself, theymight even be reasonable. The combination makesthe thing dangerous. Well.... I'l see for myself if it fits my idea of "reasonable security controls"
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: The combination makesthe thing dangerous. That is true but it is also true before any of the changes that have been made. Just travel some back roads in West Texas and see how many good old boy officers happily pull you over and give you a speeding ticket (Forget the fact that the faded old sign is behind the telephone pole.) It is in the attitude of the officals more than anything else. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
-
The so called "war on terrorism" is starting to look like something being run by people that could screw up a wet dream, I certainly wouldn't feel much safer after reading this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1115281,00.html[^]
John Cardinal wrote: run by people that could screw up a wet dream That's an interesting variant on "couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery" --Colin Mackay--
-
John Cardinal wrote: run by people that could screw up a wet dream That's an interesting variant on "couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery" --Colin Mackay--
-
The so called "war on terrorism" is starting to look like something being run by people that could screw up a wet dream, I certainly wouldn't feel much safer after reading this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1115281,00.html[^]
John Cardinal wrote: The so called "war on terrorism" is starting to look like something being run by people that could screw up a wet dream I take it that you are suggesting that when a name on the terrorist watch list shows up that we should just ignore it because the person might be a Welsh insurance agent?
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Maybe it's a questions of expectations. I've done a fair amount of air travel within, to and from the US since 9/11 and frankly, I'd rather a few false positives than one missed negative. I've stood in line waiting for screening, had my luggage searched and my hands and shoes swabbed for explosive residues and been amazed at the way some people erupt in fury when asked to submit to a simple procedure. Likewise, I've been amazed when the people having to perform those procedures feel the need to apologise. If my having to let someone swab my hands will help to ensure that I arrive at my destination in one piece I'm happy to submit provided it's a procedure everyone is subject to. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
Rob Manderson wrote: Maybe it's a questions of expectations. I've done a fair amount of air travel within, to and from the US since 9/11 and frankly, I'd rather a few false positives than one missed negative. Sure, who could disagree with that, but it's hardly the point here is it? When the sum total of their "intelligence" consists of merely a common last name can you really say your satisfied with the effort?
I support two teams: the Canucks and whoever is playing the Leafs! -
John Cardinal wrote: The so called "war on terrorism" is starting to look like something being run by people that could screw up a wet dream I take it that you are suggesting that when a name on the terrorist watch list shows up that we should just ignore it because the person might be a Welsh insurance agent?
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Actually the original uses the f word, instead of screw and is one of my favorite sayings, however I wasn't sure if even in the soapbox I should be using the f-word so...
I support two teams: the Canucks and whoever is playing the Leafs!John Cardinal wrote: the original uses the f word, instead of screw What? You mean a "fastener"? What's wrong with that? :-D --Colin Mackay--
-
I'm suggesting that the terrorist watch list should probably consist of a little bit more information than a last name. Don't you agree?
I support two teams: the Canucks and whoever is playing the Leafs!It very likely does. It might be that the news reports aren't telling everything (nah, surely not :) ) Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
-
The so called "war on terrorism" is starting to look like something being run by people that could screw up a wet dream, I certainly wouldn't feel much safer after reading this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1115281,00.html[^]
-
I'm suggesting that the terrorist watch list should probably consist of a little bit more information than a last name. Don't you agree?
I support two teams: the Canucks and whoever is playing the Leafs!>I'm suggesting that the terrorist watch list should probably consist of a little bit more information than a last name. Don't you agree? I'm sure they log their IP address... ;P OP
-
I'm suggesting that the terrorist watch list should probably consist of a little bit more information than a last name. Don't you agree?
I support two teams: the Canucks and whoever is playing the Leafs!John Cardinal wrote: I'm suggesting that the terrorist watch list should probably consist of a little bit more information than a last name. Don't you agree? Of course. But the databases aren't set up that way yet. If that makes our attempts to do the best we can a joke, then so be it.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
I have no problem with these security procedure, its things like if someone is wrongly suspected of being a terrorist and is barred from various things (possibly including travelling on any airline), under the homeland security legistlation they have no redress even if information is patently incorrect. The tigress is here :-D
In my defence I did say 'provided it's a procedure everyone is subject to' :) There was a bit of a flap in Australia recently because the Prime Minister of New Zealand was singled out for extra security checks. The Australian government (as far as I can recall) were somewhat embarrassed about subjecting the leader of another country to more stringent checks (their excuse was that no one had told the people who made the value judgement about the extra checks that she was the Prime Minister of New Zealand). To Helen Clarke's* credit she (the NZ PM) took it in her stride. I read it as a positive. No one should be above extra security checks (and that includes GWB). *I might have the spelling wrong - I ask all New Zealanders to forgive me if I have it wrong. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
-
Rob Manderson wrote: Maybe it's a questions of expectations. I've done a fair amount of air travel within, to and from the US since 9/11 and frankly, I'd rather a few false positives than one missed negative. Sure, who could disagree with that, but it's hardly the point here is it? When the sum total of their "intelligence" consists of merely a common last name can you really say your satisfied with the effort?
I support two teams: the Canucks and whoever is playing the Leafs!John Cardinal wrote: can you really say your satisfied with the effort Honestly, no, I can't. But what would you have them do? Sit on their hands and do nothing? Cancelling a flight or two (or three) might inconvenience a few hundred people (been there done that and yes it's bloody annoying when one's flight is cancelled). But I'd rather that than be on a hijacked flight. You might find this at variance with a post I made a few days ago where I said that I was damned if I was going to let someone I've never met with an agenda I don't agree with affect my travel plans. I think the difference is that I don't have access to 'chatter'. I cannot make an informed decision that today is a safe day to fly and tomorrow isn't. I have to trust that some people do have access to 'chatter' and that they can make the informed decisions I can't make. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
-
In my defence I did say 'provided it's a procedure everyone is subject to' :) There was a bit of a flap in Australia recently because the Prime Minister of New Zealand was singled out for extra security checks. The Australian government (as far as I can recall) were somewhat embarrassed about subjecting the leader of another country to more stringent checks (their excuse was that no one had told the people who made the value judgement about the extra checks that she was the Prime Minister of New Zealand). To Helen Clarke's* credit she (the NZ PM) took it in her stride. I read it as a positive. No one should be above extra security checks (and that includes GWB). *I might have the spelling wrong - I ask all New Zealanders to forgive me if I have it wrong. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
The question is when did it dawn on them that she is the PM ? It shows that their methods of checking may well miss the mark which is the issue I raised. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Optimus Prime wrote: this Oh good grief!! :eek:
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter