Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Where do you suppose GE's SFO system will get its data for the iris or fingerprint inputs? Will you have to submit one of them when you purchase your ticket (rather hard for online transactions), or are they waiting for the emergence of a government ran database?
Yet another good reason to avoid travelling anywhere within 100 miles of the USA
There are two proposed sources of biometric data. One is existing government databases of suspected bad guys. Two is passports for international travel. Smart passports will contain the biometric data. The system confirms that the passport holder is the same as the person to whom the passport was issued.
Also, the concern is not with who purchased the ticket, but who is getting onto the plane.
Also, the concern is not with who purchased the ticket, but who is getting onto the plane.
If you have someone who has a deep cover background and is not in the data based, then who purchased the ticket is very important it could be the only tell tale! BTW were is MasterCard and Visa based!!
Trav you probably did not hear about the Real ID act. This act would most likely be how they will get your finger print and iris scan and input them in to a government run database which will be accessible for security checks.
What the Real ID act did was tell the states that all their drivers licenses need to conform to the federal government specs. These specs are given down from on high by the head of the DHS. The head of the DHS can change the requirements at anytime without congressional approval, and are not limited by congress. All the databases in the states will be accessible by the federal government.
In essence this Real ID is a national ID. This will make ID counterfeiting easier and most likely will create a wave of identity theft.
Welcome to 1984 Orwell was right.
What the Real ID act did was tell the states that all their drivers licenses need to conform to the federal government specs. These specs are given down from on high by the head of the DHS. The head of the DHS can change the requirements at anytime without congressional approval, and are not limited by congress. All the databases in the states will be accessible by the federal government.
In essence this Real ID is a national ID. This will make ID counterfeiting easier and most likely will create a wave of identity theft.
Welcome to 1984 Orwell was right.
Latest news is that Real ID is going to cost 11,000,000,000.00 over the next 5 years! Wonder who's gonna pay for THAT?
This is just what I expected. The public doesn't give a damn about privacy or civil rights any more. They'll let any kind of personal violations happen, as long as they don't have to wait in line as long.
It's disgusting how much this generation will trade off it's liberty for false promises of security.
It's disgusting how much this generation will trade off it's liberty for false promises of security.
They can already track where your going by your ticket. All they are doing is proving you are who you say you are? What's wrong with that? You can forge id's, you can't forge fingerprints/iris's. It's better from a privacy stand point then a national id, look at it that way. And it's definitely more tamper proof.
I don't even look at this from a convenience stand point. I would stand in line gladly. Been there, done that, bring a book. I just think, if it was put in place as a requirement for all passengers that your would be terrorist would think twice.
Dan
I don't even look at this from a convenience stand point. I would stand in line gladly. Been there, done that, bring a book. I just think, if it was put in place as a requirement for all passengers that your would be terrorist would think twice.
Dan
I don't even see a national id database as a loss in privacy. It's what information can be attached to it and more imporantly who has access to it that are the issues.
Biometric data doesn't worry me at all, an RFID sqawking it to all and sundry definitely does.
Biometric data doesn't worry me at all, an RFID sqawking it to all and sundry definitely does.
This is consistent with the lack of objection in the U.K. to having all of those CCTV cameras monitoring everyone everywhere. I'm not saying they don't work to deter crime or at least help to catch criminals after the fact. I object to all of that monitoring.
It's a lot like the movie "Minority Report" where "they" always know where you are at all times. If you want to maintain a personal secret, such as a private relationship with someone, you cannot do it anymore. This is not just about sexual liasons. What about political relationships? When the powers that be have that much information, they can and will control politics.
edit: clarification and amplification
It's a lot like the movie "Minority Report" where "they" always know where you are at all times. If you want to maintain a personal secret, such as a private relationship with someone, you cannot do it anymore. This is not just about sexual liasons. What about political relationships? When the powers that be have that much information, they can and will control politics.
edit: clarification and amplification
CCTV applications now. What they could do with them is scary. Passport validation is not a problem though. Course I'm mainly looking at it from an external flights point of view, internal flights exist in the UK, but they are such a minor percentage of the traffic, just using one would raise alarms. A terrorist would have to be a complete moron to use one in the UK. Course you'll get tracked all the way down through the CCTvs on the motorways, trains, trams town centres.
Too late, really.
We are in the panopticon already.
One town centre as a trial project where the've installed speakers next to the camera and some guy will shout at you if you litter.
Mad.
Too late, really.
We are in the panopticon already.
One town centre as a trial project where the've installed speakers next to the camera and some guy will shout at you if you litter.
Mad.
biometric identification is already in place at most major airports (port of entry), with photography and fingerprint scanning of non-US individuals. There is no additional loss of privacy.
If GE can pull this off despite objections that would be raised (dissent is a way of life in the US, isn't it?), it would considerably ease airline travel worries. The technologies involved are not now, only that GE is bringing them together. The X-ray tomography should be very effective in scanning a passenger with everything on, biometrics can accurately connect already available information to individual passengers.
That said, I do understand the concerns about privacy, and it is true that in an environment of fear and distrust, it is easier for common citizens to overlook eggregious violations of their privacy. A national ID database, per Tony Hopkinson, is a fine idea - only as long as it remains completely secure and tamperproof.
For example, if it is not made difficult, for either the powers-that-be or a prospective hacker, to access the system and substitute one fingerprint for another in the database or change personal information, there would be no guarantee how this system may be misused. Admittedly this sounds a bit Hollywoody, but it may not be so difficult to imagine and undertake, after all...
If GE can pull this off despite objections that would be raised (dissent is a way of life in the US, isn't it?), it would considerably ease airline travel worries. The technologies involved are not now, only that GE is bringing them together. The X-ray tomography should be very effective in scanning a passenger with everything on, biometrics can accurately connect already available information to individual passengers.
That said, I do understand the concerns about privacy, and it is true that in an environment of fear and distrust, it is easier for common citizens to overlook eggregious violations of their privacy. A national ID database, per Tony Hopkinson, is a fine idea - only as long as it remains completely secure and tamperproof.
For example, if it is not made difficult, for either the powers-that-be or a prospective hacker, to access the system and substitute one fingerprint for another in the database or change personal information, there would be no guarantee how this system may be misused. Admittedly this sounds a bit Hollywoody, but it may not be so difficult to imagine and undertake, after all...
The buggers bear watching now. A national ID database for passport control only requires a passport number a name and some biometic data. Only a scanner should have read acccess, write access whould only be available in tightly controlled circumstances or to Ethan Hunt and ten mates.
The problem is this is not what they talk about, they want to link it all in so the scanner will not only know your height weight sex etc, but that you paid dildosRUs $35.95 last week for a silver deluxe finger and thumb model, which is on a two for one special offer lasting til next wednesday and that they re based in baltimore, owned by ....
Enough data to perform the function, no more.
I would n't worry too much about hackers, I'd be concentrating on a audit trail and security mechanism for any change. In fact you could make the thing read only, the writable part of it never being available for external access.
It would be easy to set it up so you could only write to it with physical access. Still might be ways in, but that would be Ethan Hunt, or an inside job.
The problem is this is not what they talk about, they want to link it all in so the scanner will not only know your height weight sex etc, but that you paid dildosRUs $35.95 last week for a silver deluxe finger and thumb model, which is on a two for one special offer lasting til next wednesday and that they re based in baltimore, owned by ....
Enough data to perform the function, no more.
I would n't worry too much about hackers, I'd be concentrating on a audit trail and security mechanism for any change. In fact you could make the thing read only, the writable part of it never being available for external access.
It would be easy to set it up so you could only write to it with physical access. Still might be ways in, but that would be Ethan Hunt, or an inside job.
The trade-offs are currently between passive RFID and contact based reading.
RFID does not broadcast on its own, rather it takes incoming signal as a power source and responds to a query. It does not broadcast at other times.
Contact based sources are open to damage, as is the reader (think of credit card magnetic stripes). Seaports are especially a concern, because of salt air and there is a desire to use common technologies for differing environments. Contact readers also require more precision than RFID, which can be used in a "close enough" scan.
I'm not necessarily endorsing the use of either, but if forced to choose, I would take RFID over a contact reader.
RFID does not broadcast on its own, rather it takes incoming signal as a power source and responds to a query. It does not broadcast at other times.
Contact based sources are open to damage, as is the reader (think of credit card magnetic stripes). Seaports are especially a concern, because of salt air and there is a desire to use common technologies for differing environments. Contact readers also require more precision than RFID, which can be used in a "close enough" scan.
I'm not necessarily endorsing the use of either, but if forced to choose, I would take RFID over a contact reader.
It isn't hard to create a homemade reader and currently very few RFID chips support encrypted data.
RFID has a LONG way to go before I trust it.
RFID has a LONG way to go before I trust it.
Dan, You said that you cannot forge fingerprints take a look at this webpage http://www.ccc.de/biometrie/fingerabdruck_kopieren.xml
Doesnt look that hard to me. As for iris scans I have seen some information that the scans can damage the eye. I don't know about you but I do not want to be blind for security which would actually cause more deaths due to accidents then deaths from terrorist attack.
Also you don't realize there is a national ID being implemented as you speak it was passed in congress called the Real ID act. When you get your drivers license renewed you will get your nice new National ID.
You seem not to have thought of the unintended consequences of this "Security State" you are looking for. The only way to create a "safety" is to give up all your rights. Ben Franklin knew this why do you think he said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Doesnt look that hard to me. As for iris scans I have seen some information that the scans can damage the eye. I don't know about you but I do not want to be blind for security which would actually cause more deaths due to accidents then deaths from terrorist attack.
Also you don't realize there is a national ID being implemented as you speak it was passed in congress called the Real ID act. When you get your drivers license renewed you will get your nice new National ID.
You seem not to have thought of the unintended consequences of this "Security State" you are looking for. The only way to create a "safety" is to give up all your rights. Ben Franklin knew this why do you think he said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
That's how I look at this requirement. I mean, that's basically what they are doing. Making you prove that your who you say you are. Or, as was previously posted. Making sure the person on the plane is who they say they are.
I knew about, or at least read about the national ID(which I agree with). But did not think it was moving forward. One of the reasons I agree with that id is because, California (example) police/officials have no idea what a pa/Ohio id looks like. If they do, I bet its a general idea. I think its easier for someone to steal your identity now by the way because the id's are just so different.
I just checked that site you pointed at, and even though I don't understand the language it was written in. I think I get the jest of it. I still think it would be hard as hell for Joe blow terrorist to get Dan M.'s(another Joe blow/me by the way) fingerprint to do what is shown on that site. Never mind, I just thought of how it could be done. Waiter in a restaurant, gets finger print from table just cleaned. Match's it to the credit card slip which which was used to pay for the meal. Still would take a hell of a lot of work though. Wouldn't be as easy as just fudging an id with Photo Shop and a good scanner, or how ever the hell they do it now.
Retina scan, got a link for that where they question that the safety of that? I'm curious on that one. For the simple reason I have bad eyes already.
Dan
I knew about, or at least read about the national ID(which I agree with). But did not think it was moving forward. One of the reasons I agree with that id is because, California (example) police/officials have no idea what a pa/Ohio id looks like. If they do, I bet its a general idea. I think its easier for someone to steal your identity now by the way because the id's are just so different.
I just checked that site you pointed at, and even though I don't understand the language it was written in. I think I get the jest of it. I still think it would be hard as hell for Joe blow terrorist to get Dan M.'s(another Joe blow/me by the way) fingerprint to do what is shown on that site. Never mind, I just thought of how it could be done. Waiter in a restaurant, gets finger print from table just cleaned. Match's it to the credit card slip which which was used to pay for the meal. Still would take a hell of a lot of work though. Wouldn't be as easy as just fudging an id with Photo Shop and a good scanner, or how ever the hell they do it now.
Retina scan, got a link for that where they question that the safety of that? I'm curious on that one. For the simple reason I have bad eyes already.
Dan
While I agree airline safety is of great concern..the proving of who you are will probably not stop at the airport..I can see once a national ID being implemented the police stopping you to check your ID just to see if you are who you say you are...Govt creep is a well known process..Once its in place whats to stop it from being used for other purposes..you have already agreed to its use for a particular situation..well this situation is almost the same..why would you have any problems with that...and as far as the national database is concerned..whats the value of that data going to be worth to someone..thats what scares me..all of that data in one location..and we all know the govt's sterling reputation for data security. One last thought..Israel has perhaps the best airline security in the world..with no hijackings for at least the last 30 years..all without using biometric screening..imagine that
Dan, I do have an issue with the government having ANY personal information of mine. If you read the constitution there is no part of that document that says the government has any powers to collect information of the citizens other then the census which is a count of the people.
I have to disagree with you that the identity theft will be much easier when all the information is in a single database in a federal computer. When this happens it will be a free for all for hackers looking to get rich all they have to do is break in to one network, if each state had a separate database of the information this would require that the hackers break in to 50 networks which would be much harder.
Also Dan you support the national ID that is your belief fine but how do you propose to pay for it? You may not realize the cost but for England a national ID system would cost at least 32 billion over 10 years, that is a expected cost and I think we all know that when a government program costs are always under estimated, normally the proposed costs are 1/2 of what the programs actual costs. Now that is just monetary costs what about the costs to our freedom? How much of my freedom are you willing to trade so that you can feel safe?
I have not even got to the religious repercussions of a national ID card which Christians would appose due to the realization that the national ID can be the "number of the beast" that is mentioned in the Book of Revelations.
I have to disagree with you that the identity theft will be much easier when all the information is in a single database in a federal computer. When this happens it will be a free for all for hackers looking to get rich all they have to do is break in to one network, if each state had a separate database of the information this would require that the hackers break in to 50 networks which would be much harder.
Also Dan you support the national ID that is your belief fine but how do you propose to pay for it? You may not realize the cost but for England a national ID system would cost at least 32 billion over 10 years, that is a expected cost and I think we all know that when a government program costs are always under estimated, normally the proposed costs are 1/2 of what the programs actual costs. Now that is just monetary costs what about the costs to our freedom? How much of my freedom are you willing to trade so that you can feel safe?
I have not even got to the religious repercussions of a national ID card which Christians would appose due to the realization that the national ID can be the "number of the beast" that is mentioned in the Book of Revelations.
Crash, please understand. I wasn't trying to argue at all. Least not for antagonizing purpose's anyway.
I thought that the direction they wanted to take with the National Id was for all states to make their license's standardized. If that was the case, then this cost would be picked up in licensening costs I would think.
Ok, I will admit that my understanding of my own faith is not as extensive as it should be. I never even thought about the "number of the beast" comparison with regard to a National Id. Shoot, there must have been a huge uproar over the Social Security Card.
dan
I thought that the direction they wanted to take with the National Id was for all states to make their license's standardized. If that was the case, then this cost would be picked up in licensening costs I would think.
Ok, I will admit that my understanding of my own faith is not as extensive as it should be. I never even thought about the "number of the beast" comparison with regard to a National Id. Shoot, there must have been a huge uproar over the Social Security Card.
dan
Dan, I realize that you were not trying to argue and I am not trying to argue I just try and show people the side of freedom in every discussion. I am sure you did not realize where the federal government officials were taking the program, most people think that when they hear about a program it will be great and no one will be able to abuse the power that the new program gives.
As for the "number of the beast" I do not believe in the prophecies of the book of revelations actually I am not even a christian. I was just giving some reasons why the program is a bad idea. Also when the social security card was being introduced there was a huge uproar about the card and the government said that the numbers would not be used for identification purposes which I think we can all say that they lied about that one. Now the SS# is needed to open a bank account, credit card, get a loan, and even get a job.
If you wonder why I have the views I promote it is because I have realized that laws that are written with the best intentions always backfire and produce unintended consequences, the unintended consequences always seem to diminish our rights or take some of our property (i.e. money). Personally I would love to see the government go back to following the constitution and get out of everyone personal lives.
As for the "number of the beast" I do not believe in the prophecies of the book of revelations actually I am not even a christian. I was just giving some reasons why the program is a bad idea. Also when the social security card was being introduced there was a huge uproar about the card and the government said that the numbers would not be used for identification purposes which I think we can all say that they lied about that one. Now the SS# is needed to open a bank account, credit card, get a loan, and even get a job.
If you wonder why I have the views I promote it is because I have realized that laws that are written with the best intentions always backfire and produce unintended consequences, the unintended consequences always seem to diminish our rights or take some of our property (i.e. money). Personally I would love to see the government go back to following the constitution and get out of everyone personal lives.
What "essential liberty" do you give up by proving your identity and proving you aren't carrying a weapon when you board a plane???
Let's list a few:
Freedom of Speech - nope, not this one
Freedom of Religion - nope, not this one either
Freedom of the Press - nope
Freedom of Peaceful Assembly - nope
Bearing Arms - it's limited by this, but since the purpose of this right is to maintain a national militia, it may not be applicable
Unreasonable Search and Seizure - possibly, depends on the case at hand
No Torture, No Requirement to Testify Against Self, No Cruel/Unusual Punishment - nope, not violated
So, what we have is a possibly unreasonable search and siezure violation and a reduction in the right to bear arms.
Of those, only unreasonable siezure seems to actually be a problem.
And that one could actually be improved with better security technology. An automatic scanner that can detect bombs inside laptops without having to open the case:
A) Won't covet the laptop and possibly steal it on a pretext (it happens)
B) Won't void the warranty on the laptop
C) Will be less likely to damage the laptop
So, it seems to me that a more automatic system, with less human error and human prejudice and human greed in it will be an improvement, not the other way around.
Of course, others are free to disagree with my conclusions, but those are my opinions on this.
Let's list a few:
Freedom of Speech - nope, not this one
Freedom of Religion - nope, not this one either
Freedom of the Press - nope
Freedom of Peaceful Assembly - nope
Bearing Arms - it's limited by this, but since the purpose of this right is to maintain a national militia, it may not be applicable
Unreasonable Search and Seizure - possibly, depends on the case at hand
No Torture, No Requirement to Testify Against Self, No Cruel/Unusual Punishment - nope, not violated
So, what we have is a possibly unreasonable search and siezure violation and a reduction in the right to bear arms.
Of those, only unreasonable siezure seems to actually be a problem.
And that one could actually be improved with better security technology. An automatic scanner that can detect bombs inside laptops without having to open the case:
A) Won't covet the laptop and possibly steal it on a pretext (it happens)
B) Won't void the warranty on the laptop
C) Will be less likely to damage the laptop
So, it seems to me that a more automatic system, with less human error and human prejudice and human greed in it will be an improvement, not the other way around.
Of course, others are free to disagree with my conclusions, but those are my opinions on this.
gsquared, You said that "Bearing Arms - it's limited by this, but since the purpose of this right is to maintain a national militia, it may not be applicable". You might want to go back and do some research why the 2nd amendment was created. The amendment was created because the founding fathers knew that a state militia/army can be turned against the population and the 2nd amendment would make sure that the population would be able to defend themselves against the militia/army.
As for the freedom of speech would be violated by requiring people to identify themselves the freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to speak.
The unreasonable search and seizure is definitely being violated on a day to day basis.
Now I have no problem with the airline company banning items on their airline, the airplane is the companies private property and they should be able to make any rules they want on their private property. I have a problem with my tax money going to pay to screen passengers on a privately owned airplane. If a airline's rules were too restrictive people would have the ability to choose a different airline or a different mode of transportation.
As for the freedom of speech would be violated by requiring people to identify themselves the freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to speak.
The unreasonable search and seizure is definitely being violated on a day to day basis.
Now I have no problem with the airline company banning items on their airline, the airplane is the companies private property and they should be able to make any rules they want on their private property. I have a problem with my tax money going to pay to screen passengers on a privately owned airplane. If a airline's rules were too restrictive people would have the ability to choose a different airline or a different mode of transportation.
Hi CrashOverider,
In your message, it mentioned that "As for iris scans I have seen some information that the scans can damage the eye." Could you please let me know where you got the information? I am interested in this topic.
Thanks.
Kevin
In your message, it mentioned that "As for iris scans I have seen some information that the scans can damage the eye." Could you please let me know where you got the information? I am interested in this topic.
Thanks.
Kevin
The people that hijacked the planes during 9/11 are suspected of going through the baggage handling entrance, which is NOT checked. Putting more delays/controls on normal entrances will only encourage the real bad guys to find alternate entrances; crew mwmber, baggage handler, etc.
In this particular situation, there is no real privacy invasion. It is more to keep us safe, than anything else.
However, we mustn't let ourselves go lax on the governing bodies that should regulate these things. Somewhere down the line these type of technologies will go too far. And if at that point we have become so desensitized to their presence, we may be blind to the dangers they can present. Most technologies begin with a benign purpose that serves society for the better.
But there is always someone or some corporation that will see potential for using the technologies in a way they were not intended, often harmful to other people.
Indeed the airport security is an issue and would be greatly alleviated with this kind of technology. But it could lead to the use of this kind of thing everywhere...much like in a sci-fi film where you'd pass similar type scanners everytime you enter or leave a building and even at certain checkpoints out on the street. This I think is where we'd have to be very careful about our privacy. It is one thing to be secure about knowing who is entering the same building as you. But there are times when you yourself do not wish it to be known where you are. And for perfectly innocent reasons.
Of course these type of situations are backed by the well-known "if you are innocent and have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" statement. But we know, that there ARE legitimate situations that arise where we DON't WANT to be scanned all the time.
Tink
However, we mustn't let ourselves go lax on the governing bodies that should regulate these things. Somewhere down the line these type of technologies will go too far. And if at that point we have become so desensitized to their presence, we may be blind to the dangers they can present. Most technologies begin with a benign purpose that serves society for the better.
But there is always someone or some corporation that will see potential for using the technologies in a way they were not intended, often harmful to other people.
Indeed the airport security is an issue and would be greatly alleviated with this kind of technology. But it could lead to the use of this kind of thing everywhere...much like in a sci-fi film where you'd pass similar type scanners everytime you enter or leave a building and even at certain checkpoints out on the street. This I think is where we'd have to be very careful about our privacy. It is one thing to be secure about knowing who is entering the same building as you. But there are times when you yourself do not wish it to be known where you are. And for perfectly innocent reasons.
Of course these type of situations are backed by the well-known "if you are innocent and have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" statement. But we know, that there ARE legitimate situations that arise where we DON't WANT to be scanned all the time.
Tink
At this time, I cannot fly- or perhaps more accurately will not. I am unable to fly without admitting that I use a prosthetic and would be required to remove it for examination. As it is a rather sensitive thing, I refuse to do so. I don't think that I should have to be publically embarrassed because of the damage done to my body from cancer.
If there is a better way, I would like to think that someone is on it. I don't dispute the need for security- I understand it. However, I don't think that the issue is merely to shorten waiting times. I see it as an effort to increase security while reducing stress on the system. To me, the effort is more about insuring that "human error" is reduced.
It impacts me only insofar as a new approach may allow me to fly again.
If there is a better way, I would like to think that someone is on it. I don't dispute the need for security- I understand it. However, I don't think that the issue is merely to shorten waiting times. I see it as an effort to increase security while reducing stress on the system. To me, the effort is more about insuring that "human error" is reduced.
It impacts me only insofar as a new approach may allow me to fly again.
this makes anything safer? If we would have had all this gee-whiz multimillion dollar garbage on September 10th, 2001, the hijackers would still have got on board. IIRC, all or most of them had valid passports in their own name.
This system is nothing more than extending the 10-foot high fence to 15-feet high. Unfortunately, the fence is still only about six feet wide. This will do nothing to enhance security, but it sure makes for great headlines, doesn't it? And, after all, headlines and buzzwords show they care a lot more than the tedious, non-press-release-grabbing grind that real security requires.
Airport security has zipped right by science fiction and landed smack in the middle of Kafka.
This system is nothing more than extending the 10-foot high fence to 15-feet high. Unfortunately, the fence is still only about six feet wide. This will do nothing to enhance security, but it sure makes for great headlines, doesn't it? And, after all, headlines and buzzwords show they care a lot more than the tedious, non-press-release-grabbing grind that real security requires.
Airport security has zipped right by science fiction and landed smack in the middle of Kafka.
How is it more secure you are not a listed terrorist and you get on the plane and blow it up in flight who did it???? Never know but they would know that john smith from wa. is having an affair with jane doe while married to john smith and billy doe suspects his wife is sleeping around and hires a hacker to check on this stuff then knows everything because its been hacked and finds where john smith who is flying 6 hours or whatever cross country on business to sleep with his mistress etc. etc. too much power for too many dumb people that cant keep stuff locked down rather like the banks
Ok I have been badmouthing this airport security and not giving any real solutions I have 2 solutions.
1. Bacon and a Kiss airline. The "Islamic terrorists/ fascist/ or whatever they are called this week" are not allowed by their religion to eat bacon or practice homosexuality I propose that everyone getting on a plane either has to kiss a member of the same sex or eat some bacon. If a hijacker committed these sins before they killed themselves they would not go to heaven which then would remove their desire to die. (this idea taken from Penn Jellett)
2. When everyone boards a plane hand them a navy revolver fully loaded. As everyone knows from the plane that crashed in PA on 9-11 Americans will not allow another hijacking to occur with everyone armed the hijackers would have to neutralize practically everyone on a plane before they could hijack the plane. After the flight everyone turns in the revolver.
Both of these ideas would not involve the government interference and would be able to be done without costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars.
What does everyone think?
1. Bacon and a Kiss airline. The "Islamic terrorists/ fascist/ or whatever they are called this week" are not allowed by their religion to eat bacon or practice homosexuality I propose that everyone getting on a plane either has to kiss a member of the same sex or eat some bacon. If a hijacker committed these sins before they killed themselves they would not go to heaven which then would remove their desire to die. (this idea taken from Penn Jellett)
2. When everyone boards a plane hand them a navy revolver fully loaded. As everyone knows from the plane that crashed in PA on 9-11 Americans will not allow another hijacking to occur with everyone armed the hijackers would have to neutralize practically everyone on a plane before they could hijack the plane. After the flight everyone turns in the revolver.
Both of these ideas would not involve the government interference and would be able to be done without costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars.
What does everyone think?
1). Jewish religion does not allow for pork either. That, and some people just don't like bacon for health reasons. Not me, I love it. I think it would be great.
2). Lol, drunk in aisle one is loud and obnoxious. 200 people stand up and blow the idiot away. Mass murder on the airwaves.
lol, I hope those were put forward with tongue in cheek.
Actually, my thoughts on this. Make sure your list of do not fly identities are always up to date. Some of those terrorists from 9/11 were known. They weren't spouse to be in the United States period. People did not pass the word(CIA????). Then this would be more successful. I do agree with your earlier post Crash, that the terrorists can fly under their own name if we don't keep that list updated.
Dan
2). Lol, drunk in aisle one is loud and obnoxious. 200 people stand up and blow the idiot away. Mass murder on the airwaves.
lol, I hope those were put forward with tongue in cheek.
Actually, my thoughts on this. Make sure your list of do not fly identities are always up to date. Some of those terrorists from 9/11 were known. They weren't spouse to be in the United States period. People did not pass the word(CIA????). Then this would be more successful. I do agree with your earlier post Crash, that the terrorists can fly under their own name if we don't keep that list updated.
Dan
The technology already exists to help protect us but is of course not being used correctly (imagine that) by the govt. i.e. if they would get away from turf battles and actually talk to each other the 911 idiots (most of them anyway) would probably not have even boarded the planes. heck the FBI is still spending millions trying to upgrade their systems so their agents can use laptops while in the field..and you really think more technology is the answer...let them first learn how to correctly use what they have now...then we can accurately guage wether or not they need more to do the same job...is that asking to much
Reminds me of a story about a travelling salesman who was worried about being hijacked. He calls his friend, a math guru, and asked him, "What are the odds of a plane having a bomb on it?. His friend replies, "About a million to one. However the odds of the same plane having two bombs on it are over a billion to one. Take a bomb with you."
Well if we are talking about odds you have a better chance to be hit by lightning then being killed by a terrorist attack. Actually you have a better chance that a coconut will fall from a tree and kill you then being killed by a terrorist.
If people are worried about being killed they should be terrified every day they could die in a car accident, slip in the bathtub, or fall down some stairs.
If people are worried about being killed they should be terrified every day they could die in a car accident, slip in the bathtub, or fall down some stairs.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
