Privacy

Cell phones: Guess what. Cell phone companies have ALWAYS been able to track you (although not quite as accurately as can be done with GPS). How do you think they know how to get a phone call to your cell phone, no matter where you are. It's called triangulation. Cell phones, when powered up, periodically send a signal to the nearest cellular tower identifying the phone. Several cellular towers usually receive these signals. The cellular tower that receives the strongest signal "takes responsibility" for that particular cell phone until another tower receives the strongest signal and receives the hand-off. Since the cellular signal is received by several towers, the cell company can effectively triangulate your location.

911 operators have ALWAYS been able to determine the location a 911 call was placed from if it was placed from a standard phone. The 911 operator automatically receives the phone number the call is placed from, and the address tied to that phone number, even if the caller didn't know their location. Obviously, this doesn't happen with a cell phone. Because of this enough deaths have occurred (because 911 operators couldn't determine the location of the caller), that the government got involved andimplemented new rules under the title e-911 or electronic 911. These rules forced cell phone manufacturers to implement technology to allow 911 operators to quickly and immediately determine the location of a 911 call placed from a cell phone basedon technology implemented on the cell phone. Obviously this feature can be (and has been) used by law enforcement with the appropriate permissions (warrants). Can this be used by unscrupulous individuals? Certainly, but so can the standard methods of surveillance (wiretaps and video cameras parked across the street).
(continued)

Cameras: As law enforcement budgets get tighter and tighter, many communities have resorted to cameras to supplement and (probably in some cases, replace) the cops on the street. Obviously, an added advantage (or disadvantage, depending on your point of view) is that cameras can record (for later playback and archiving) EVERYTHING it sees.

Wired houses: ALL the systems integrated into the "wired houses" of today and the future are usually directly under the control of the home owner. Thebottom line is that it isn't the police you need to worry about. If the system is easy for the police to get access and control (with or without a warrant), it is also easy for all the undesirables out there to get into.

E-commerce: You're worried about providing the information required for an online credit purchase, but I bet you don't give it a second thought when you give the 18 yr old waiter at the local restaurant your card and he disappears with it for 10 minutes.

There are usually downsides to any benefits that a given technology provides in our daily lives. It is up to the user of the technology to understand what those downsides might be and either choose accept the risks or choose not to use the technology.

If yourare really super concerned about the subjects of your questions: go without a cell phone, don't leave your house (or always wear a disguise), don't wire your house, and always pay cash.

All the technologies involved here merely make it easier for the unscrupulous individual to do the bad things he has always been able to do to you.

The question is what price are you willing to pay for freedom. The America - Home of the Free and Brave is becoming the Safe and Cowards. A strange group I call Liberals whine that the government isn't protecting them from themselves - I eat fast food - I smoke cigs - I drink pop - I drink beer - I have unsafe sex .. Protect me - I sue the company because I don't take the responsibility for my own actions - someone else should tell me I can't do that.

The more freedom you have - the more unsafe you are (safety is your responsibility)- the less freedom you have the safer (preceived) you are - Governments rule to keep you safe - from the bad people, bad things, bad foods, bad drinks, bad air, bad water, bad cars (SUV's).

America needs to end the liberal controls that are being placed on us by the government. The government needs to do its job and protect our boarders (imagration) ... not watch me shave, know where I drive - next you'll have check points as you drive across states ... like in Russa...

Sorry - Yes I get Upset when the Government takes away my freedoms and privacy ... and Yes the people of the USA should vote the bastards that are doing it out of office... but the liberals have control of the media for now... FOX will win..Go O'Reily Factor..

As usual the truly defensive spirit comes out. No matter aht is said, my last post was a violent attack against anyone and anything American. I intended to pinpoint America and it's citizens directly, that's why I said America as in most countrys. Time for the defenses to be raised so that these people can retain their pride, which seems to be found defensively not from positive actions.

"Lets see if you shoot me for no reason - yes you will end up in jail ... But if I had tried to rob you or kill you, or rape your wife or your daughter and you shot me. Guess what - your walking without any problems Free - Self defense - no problems - you're skipping down the highway free as a bird." Possibly in an ideal world, but I haven't seen tomany cases go that way in some time now.

Pour it on guys, I'm away until next week so you should be able to stetch this thread into and american anti-world discussion while I'm gone.
Great job Jim!! Land of the free, woohoo !!
Sorry I tried to exercise my supposed "freedom" of speech.

road-dog:
>Basically all this boils down to privacy Vs. convenience. You decide what makes sense for you.

I wish I could decide what makes sense for me. I would opt for privacy in most cases. But unfortunately, that isn't always an option.For example, my cell phone has GPS in it. I can turn it off, but not completely. The 911 (i.e. government tracking) will always be on.

And furthermore, the public hasn't been informed of all of this. No one told me what the "location" featureon my phone meant. I simply saw the little icon, and researched what it was for.

I'll bet if the public was CLEARLY informed about GPS in cell phones, and that you CAN'T turn off the "government tracking" aspect of it, there would be a massive outcry against it.

An issue like this should be clearly explained to you when you get the phone, and you should be given the option to "opt out" if you want to.

And don't tell me that I don't need to get a cell phone; cell phones are becoming a part of life. For me to "opt out" of the cell phone in order to avoid "government tracking" would put me at a severe handicap in this modern age.

I shouldn't be forced into that kind of choice, especially since I haven't been found guilty of any crime.

There is a company in town that wouldn't mind having a 'This Company Sucks' t-shirt. For all I know, they have one for their more adventuresome employees.

The company makes sump pumps and the like.

Story:

http://tinyurl.com/fd2a

Photo:

To see a photo of the "X-Ray" vision results, go to http://www.drudgereport.com/

(However, Drudge will change his home page every day or two, so depending on when you read this, it may or may not be there.)

I worry about the stuff you mentioned. I also worry about other things like:

- Free membership discount cards to stores like Safeway and Albertsons. While they say that they don't let personal data out, that could be the story of the moment. (Oddly enough, according to my wife, Safeway appeared to raise some of their prices so they could offer discounts to members...)

- Dumpster divers. What you throw out in the trash can be used to get a picture of your life. And you're putting yourfinancial life in danger if any of that trash has account numbers and ID numbers on it. (That's why I recycle some things and shred others.)

- Mail stealing. The mail box beside the road or on the wall by the front door is not well secured. Incoming and outgoing items can be stolen and used for identity theft. And if a thief selectively removes items, it can create some major financial problems that in turn force a person to sell desired assets to the thief at discount prices.

- Spyware. Whether downloaded from the Internet or installed as part of CD package, spyware can be the 'mole' that watches what you do and reports it to others.

...that some people intentionally - yes, intentionally - attempt to bait others into a confrontation. There are two or three that specifically come to mind, and there are two or three ways I could describe them.

What I think should be done is...........

...that others are taking the "politically correct" stance, not wanting to "offend" anyone, and are remaining silent.

Bravo, Road Dog, on the idea of a pre-approved "pass" based on the thumbprint.

And the Israel model of, as you put it, looking for terrorists is more fair as well.

I think it's nonsense to be "unfair and intrusive" to everybody simply for thesake of not singling out certain people.

in my small city a couple of years ago that tests the "self defense" supposition.

Our local police received a tip that a resident was dealing drugs. The info was given by a guy that they has just popped for posession himself. They got a warrant and did pre raid surveillance that consisted of an unmarked car driving by with the informant pointing out the house as they crept by.

The homeowner shot and killed one of the officers during the raid with an unlucky shot through the arm hole in the body armor. His defense was that the officers deafened his family with a stun grenade BEFORE announcing that they were police.

No drugs/money were found...

The homeowner was acquitted on all charges.

Suffice it to say, here in Florida it is legal to repel boarders....

Colin:

Please don't take this personally. This is really a hot button with me.

It really bothers me when people who aren't from the US try to give a knowledgeable analysis of the political system here, and then miss it so badly. We DO have freedom. And in many places in the US, there is terms limits (limiting how long a politician can stay in office).

I remember back a few years, the New Orleans City Council got terms limits passed (I think the voters voted on it). Well guess what?It wasn't long till there was a whole new City Council. (Previous to that time, the same people pretty much stayed in office for life.)

So we see here that the voters actually got something meaningful passed, and we got a whole new City Council.

Recently the voters cleaned house on the New Orleans School Board also.

I know that the American system isn't perfect. But I think it is the best effort to date to limit the power of the govt over the people, and to have a successful govt in the process.

The very fact that you can get on the Internet and criticize America (or anyone else, for that matter) (and I know that you are glad you can do this) comes from America. The American military created the Internet, and then turned it over to the public.

And the fact that America is such an open and free society allows you to know what is going on here in the US.

So next time you want to criticize America, or call us naive (a German girl told me once that Americans are very naive - I never forgot that comment), realize that we will fight for your right to say such things, and you aren't even a citizen. So maybe your negative and cynical comments about America or about Americans should be more balanced.

Again, nothing personal.

Was that 'political correctness' comment a challenge?

I can see strengths and weakness in the primary viewpoints in this branch of the discussion. Of course that's because I'm used to seeing things in shades of grey and I tend to question authority. I'm also used to coming up with 'What if' situations that test the assumptions of various arguments.

Call me a hybrid who considers Ayn Rand and John Muir to be equals in their contributions to society.

I don't agree with racial profiling. But I do believe that they could come up with more accurate analytical methods than they have now, which don't require racial profiling, nor the "strip search" xray machine.

The "strip search" xray machine reminds me of someone hiding behind a 2way mirror in the dressing room of a store, to see if anyone is stealing anything. The store doesn't have the right to do that.

Although racial profiling sounds good on the surface, when you think about it, itis unfair to the many innocents of the particular group to profile because of the few guilty people. I've thought a lot about the idea of racial profiling, and to me it is an un-American way to prevent crime. Your race doesn't determine if you will commit crimes. There are perhaps other clues which can be used.

I agree with learning from El-Al; I disagree with you on all other points.

What I put down was only a few statments of FACT and while I will admit that I did use the US model as an example what I sad is equially true of most Demorcratic Countries around the world. I was in fact having a shot at all Demorcratic Systems on this small Planet.

Yes I agree with you that at the moment it is THE BEST SYSTEM we have so far come up with but it is by no means perfect and when we stop trying to improve the system it is then that things start going downhill very fast. We all should say that is the time when we put our foot on the greasy downhill slope for the first time and after that it is only too easy to let things happen without trying anymore to improve the system. It is without full participation in improving the Demorcratic System where the biggest problem arrises and here I'm not only refering to voting at every ellection but being fully involved within the system and always attempting to improve the current position to make it something better.

I am SORRYthat you saw it as an attempt to "Have A Go" at the US in particular as this was never my intention but to point out that when good people no longer felt that they had the need to particapate within the system this is the time when things start going downhill. Remember that most of this Worlds greatest Despots where all Demorcraticly Ellected and it is up to all of us to make sure that a person like Hitler never again gains power in any country. Unfortantly in this we have been very remiss and allowed people like Hussain and his ilk to gain power at the expence of humanity in general.

I only used the US model because everyone else was refering to it and I didn't want to be in a position of comparing apples to oranges like I would have been accused of if I had of used any other Demorcratic System across the world.

I hope that this goes some way to explain just why I used the US model and not any other but what I said previously applies to most of the demorcratic systems across the world and you should not think for a single nanosecond that I was in any way singling out theAmerician Government or its election model as this was never my intention I just wanted to sheed some light on how this form of Government actually works.

However I am a firm believer that all Governments must change for them to remain fresh anddo the best job possible as if one party stays in power for too long they become tired and don't replace their members on a regular basis so they no longer do the best job possible. As an example I will point you to the Australian Federal Governmentpost WW11 where the Liberal Government came into power and stayed there for well over 30 years, these people gained the idea thay they where born to rule and as such did a less that acceptiable job. When the Government did change in the early 70's the Australian people where unacostomed to the rapid change that was necessary and there where General Ellections about every 18 months for the next few years until that Government was removed in a less then welcome manner. The person responsible virtually had to leave Australia and was held up for contempt for the rest of his life. Although he did everything in a Legal manner the population of Ausdtralia couldn't accept his actions.

But what happened there caused a massive loss of confidence in the business comunity and a very unstable situation for many years to come.

>> Cell phones are now equipped with GPS, or "location", technology. 911 can always track where you are. Others can, too, if you don't turn this "feature" off. Could some unscrupulus police or government official track his political enemies?

Cell-phones have ALWAYS been tracable! That's how they work! GSM cells are only a mile or so wide with at least two of three ajacent cells allowing a phone to log on to the network. Hence triangulation down to 0.3km or so has always been possible!

>>Cameras are EVERYWHERE. (Just look around, the next time you drive about town.)

I have three covering the street outside my flat, feeding a colour quad, time and date generator and VCR in my living room. I'm sick of kids messing with our cars and'neighbours from hell' disturbing my sleep. Thanks to evidence generated by my surveillance system, at least 4 adseholes are serving 'time'.

>>We now buy lots of things via the Web, entering our credit card and other personal information without even batting an eye. Do you think it's really safe to do that?

And when you hand your Visa to a waiter, for how long is it out of your sight?!! Internet fraud counts for just 0.5% of credit card fraud. Most occurs due to dishonest shop and restaurant workers, or simple theft!

>>A good hacker could crack any of this stuff. An evil person who pays the hacker sufficient money could find out all kinds of things about you or me.

So can a bad hacker! And you wouldn't believe just how much information on all of us is out there in the public domain!

Ya pays ya money and takes ya choice!

Where soneone tried to hijack an aircraft and the passangers subjuded him {read that as beating seven kinds of shit out of him}. Now these pasangers didn't have any wapons on them because they wern't allowed to and the person responsible for the attempted hijacking smuggled some sharpened sticks onto the aircratf and attacked the cabin personal. These weapons copuldn't have been picked up in regular screening as they where wood.

I agree with you it is our responsibility to take care of ourselves but in this case I can't help but wonder what would have happened if some of the passangers had been armed with firearms. It could have been a lot worse as a projectile discharged from any firearm makes no difference weather it hits the person responsible for the hijacking or puntcures the airframe which would lead to far more injuries or even death from oxgen deprivation.

A modern aircraft skin is a very delicate thing that must be protected at all costs for the safety of those on the aircraft so while I am the first to take responsibility for my own safety I still don't think that firearms should be allowed on any comerical aircraft as the risk is just too great. Even a small hole can suck people through and these would be the people not directly involved in whatever was happenign on the aircraft. But the other side of the coin we can't carry tie-pins onto an aircraft nowdays and this to me is just stupid, somewhere there has to be a line drawn but it has to make sence and not bann everything that has the pontential to be a weapon.

My hat (an Australian style bush hat versus the traditional Texas Stetson) is off to those individuals who accepted responsibility for their own safety. A good beating will do more to deter that particular miscreant from future criminal activity than any 100 laws.

On your last paragraph, I suggest you review your physics. I don't want to spoil anyone's enjoyment of adventure and action films, but being sucked out of an aircraft is way down the list of concerns. There is a short movement of air during rapid decompression as the pressure equalizes between altitude and the 8K foot pressure used on airlines. Raises a lot of dust, disturbs light objects, and that is all. A small hole is easily plugged with any larger object. Loss of a hatch could cause a person to fall out if they were by the hatch and caught unawares.

Posibility of a window being blown by a shot rather than a realitively small hole being made in the skin of an aircraft at altitude buy a projectile from a fire arm. In a case like this the person right beside the windows would in fact be sucked outthrough a combination of depreasurision and the vacum effect of air going past an opening at somewhere in the vicinity of 600 KPH.

Sorry for the confussion.

The "sucked out" scenario appears to be a myth. We lost an escape hatch and had one heck of a time keeping anything on the grate. No one and nothing got sucked out. It was a bit unnerving to have a "hole" behind my seat, but the only danger was thatof an accidental spoiler deployment on landing. Now, we were not above 30K at the time and our airspeed was probably only 300 knots.

Likewise, the hazard of bailing out at speed had to do with aircraft stability if the spoiler were deployed and impact with the fuselage when the slipstream was entered, not the fear of being sucked out of the aircraft.

The real issue is whether individuals should take responsibility for their own security. The immediate issue is the hazard such actions could create versus the danger of turning responsibility for safety and security over to government authority. To me, the long term danger is greater with the latter. While a benevolent dictator may create a heaven on earth for the citizens, his replacement may find his personal heaven is subjecting his citizens to hell.

Here in the US, the requirement is for cellular phones to provide their position based on GPS so that the dispatcher can identify the callers location. Before GPS was decided upon, other technologies were considered.

New phones in the US require the GPS capability - in essence the ability to correctly receive and translate the GPS signals and to then transmit the data with a 911 or 311 call.

External GPS devices are available to interface with existing cellular phones.

Certain serviceslike On*Star from GM have used the external GPS equipment since the early 1990's, along with other features like crash detection, vehicle information, etc. These systems were tied to the vehicle however, and the position capability was not availablewhen the phone was removed from the car. The approach back then was similar to the old modem or fax calls, with a hand off from modem to voice. No talk button, but rather an automated switch once the data was transmitted.

It is simple step to move from the automatic number identification transmission that allows a cell phone to send and receive calls while moving between cells to adding GPS data. Processing the data is not as simple, since the technology of the service providers will have tobe changed.

See http://tinyurl.com/fljf for a legal summary.
See http://tinyurl.com/fljo for the FCC report.

With the following statment,

The real issue is whether individuals should take responsibility for their own security. The immediate issue is the hazard such actions could create versus the danger of turning responsibility for safety and security over to government authority.

I to believe that it is our responsibily to protect ourselves and personally I don't give 2 hoots for any Government sponsered protection as it always is of the passive form and not the active form.

I also don't want to continue thsi particular thread too much either as it is self defeting but I was talking about a comerical airliner that was at alitude and normal crusing speed which from memory is something like 630 KPH at 33,000 meters or at least thats what I think they said last time I flew anywhere but honestly I don't really pay too much attention as I have no control over what the air crew actually does so I leave it to them.

However I do have some potential input into what happens inside the passange compartment and anyone that thinks for 1 nanosecond that I'm just going to sit down and not worry if there is any form of activity that is contary to the well being of the aircraft that I am riding in doesn't know me at all well. It is in a case like that where I would act as the worst that could happen is that I die {which is likely anyway} so if I'm in a position of dying I feel that I may as well go out fighting rather than cowering in a seat hoping for someone else to act.

Give one man a gun, he has control over his fellows. Give everyone a gun, and you have America.

The whole "right to bear arms" thing arises from a misinterpretation of an element of the US constitution written for a very different time. While having a muskett, or a pistol may have been really handy a couple of hundred years ago, when militia formed a significant portion of the US defence strategy, and still might be handy now in certain geographical areas, where there are dangerous wild animals to pose a threat, giving everyone over the age of 17 access to firearms is...well, I don't think it needs a metaphor. It's enough of a ridiculous idea as it is.

...a full understanding of the U.S. Constitution nor does it appear that he/she has read the Federalist Papers, which contain the thoughts of the original founders and full explanations of the intent behind the words.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding what was meant by the Second Ammendment and the right to bear arms.

I cannot claim to know what was in the mind of our founding fathers when that was added. However, they seem to have always chosen their wording carefully. The other nine ammendments deal with individual rights, and everywhere else government bodies have powers, not rights. Only individuals seem to have rights.

Seems to me that the likely intent was to insure American citizens retain weapons as a final defense against enemies of freedom "within and without". Leaving this to a standing army, at either a national or state level, reduces our security from abuse by those in power.

Or so it seems to me.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I find that a lot of people quote the last twoparts of the sentence while ignoring the first two. That always makes me wonder what the definition of "a well regulated militia" is in modern day terms.

I also find, as JimHM hints, that people focus on guns and ignore other techniques of hayhem generation. The phrasing of the Second Amendment doesn't preclude me from using other types of arms as long as I meet the requirements of "a well regulated militia."

From what I've found on the Boeing site, typical
cruising speeds for a 737 are around 530 MPH.

Cruising altitudes range from 31,000 feet to about 40,000 feet.

You might also check out the jet in Hawaii that lost it's top yet was able to land, minus a few passengers. It was an interesting event.

...have been debating the wording of the second amendment for decades, and there's no consensus as to the intent behind the wording. Both sides of the argument start from the desired conclusion and work backwards, both choosing the words that support their desired conclusion. In a way, they're both right, yet they're both wrong. The wording used to differentiate between weapons of war and personal weapons (hunting and/or protection) doesn't exist, so the wording is vague. Was this intentional?

In the 18th century, generally speaking, weapons of war and weapons of self-protection (and/or hunting) were similar. Everyone had a musket for protection and hunting, and most every soldier carried his personal musket into battle. Logic would dictate, therefore, that since a soldier carries an M-16 into battle, any citizen should be able to own an M-16. Or would it? How about an M-1 Tank? How about an F-16? Where is the line drawn? Today, how hard would it be for a person to buy an F-16 fortheir pleasure and/or protection, and buy the arms necessary to fully load it? How about impossible? However, would the government of 1800 prevent a person from building a fully armed battleship - one the could have been a formidable match for the original USS Constitution? I don't think so.

(continued...)

I think the true intent of the second amendment can be found, not in the Constitution itself, but in the writings of Thomas Jefferson when he said (and I'm paraphrasing) that it's a citizens duty to rise up against any government should it become too oppressive. I wonder what T.J. intended for those citizens to use as weapons, sticks and stones, perhaps?

The gun laws in America, so they say, should be as strict as they are in "my" country. Should they really? In what country would it be easier for the citizens to rise up and overthrow (if necessary) an overly oppressive government? Great Britain? Iraq? The United States? In reality, even though the citizens of the U.S. are better equipped (better armed) to undertake such a task, assuming the military remained in government control, it would be a lost cause before it even began. But at least in the United States, we'd have a fighting chance - if necessary.

How can everybody be treated with equal unfairness? It makes no logical sense.

Most of the benefit garnered by security procedures at airports (or indeed anywhere) is as a deterrent. If people know they can get through security without problem,they'll be more inclined to take liberties with them. Meanwhile, targetting middle-eastern travellers almost exclusively will not help in any peacekeeping efforts.

No-one is treated unfairly if everyone's treated equally.

530 MPH = 848 KPH and we use the metric system over here and the piolts constantly talk of alitudes around 30,000 metres but as I don't go into cockpits I really don't know and just take them at their word honestly I'm not all that interested anywaybut a big hole doesn't cause rapid decompression in the same manner as a hole a bit larger than something like a bullet hole. If a window was to blow out there would be rapid decompression within a confined space that would cause a very localised area of severe wind stream that would be very deterious to anyone in the vicinity.
I could draw your attention to the DC10 that had its rear cargo door open in flight over France? and the last few rows of passangers where sucked out before the plane crashed. It seems that when the floor cloasped and went out the back cargo door it also took out all the controls to the rear flight surfaces so the pilot had no control over the aircraft and it went into a very gradual dive and ended up spreading wreackage over a very large area.
I can't remember the exact number but there where at least 3 rows of seats found in a farmers field something like 20 miles away with the passangers still straped in their seats, it was this discovery that led to finding out why the plane crashed but it didn't do much for the passangers involved.

A school teacher who was hit in the back of the head with a spit-ball put the entire class in detention for a week because no one would admit to committing that particular indiscretion. No one claimed to have seen the incident, and everyone claimed that they were unaware of the true perpetrator's identity. Moreover, all of the students from this day forward will have to pass through a spit-ball detection process every time they enter the classroom. After all, we have to make sure no one ever does this again.

That was, albeit rather silly and simplistic, an example of applying equally unfair treatment. (The spit-ball, by the way, was flung by a stealthy hooligan from outside the building, through an open window, over the heads of the students who were all looking down at their study books.) It's unfair to punish one person for a crime he or she did not commit, just as it is to punish two, three or more - or all. Just punish everyone, you say, and you're bound to punish the perpetrator in the process. Well that dog won't hunt. It's also unfair to inconvenience one person for a potential crime he or she would never commit, just as it is to inconvenience two, three or more - or all. Just inconvenience everyone, you say, and you're bound to deter that very small percentage of potential perpetrators. That's another dog that won't hunt. Yes, everyone can indeed be equally treated unfairly. I also think that DUI checkpoints are another example of unfairness applied equally. Justpull EVERYBODY over - regardless of their driving behavior - to check them for driving under the influence of something.

(continued...)

Every day, hundreds of millions of people are inconvenienced - equally and unfairly, without regard to who they are or what stature they may hold within their community - as they are searched in some form or another whenever they enter an airport, astadium, a county building, a theater, a concert, a school, and on and on, all because of a few hooligans outside the figurative building attempting to disrupt their normal way of life. Well guess what, they've succeeded in disrupting our way of life. And another thing, it's downright stupid - and unfair - to take nail clippers away from some grandma in a wheelchair under the pretense of maintaining security - but it is unfairness applied equally.

I checked a bit deeper since my experiences may not have matched current commercial aviation realities.

As I stated earlier, being sucked out of the aircraft is the stuff of Hollywood. The Honolulu incident involved a loss of seating area due tostructural failure, not a vacum cleaner effect. The pressure difference in a rapid decompression is resolved in about 20 seconds.

Here are some links for those interested in pursuing this further.
http://tinyurl.com/fob7
http://tinyurl.com/fob9

Just because it's not pleasant doesn't mean it's not fair.

Security is not punishment, but *security*. If it didn't exist then every silly sod and his wife would bring stupid things onto planes and into secure areas.

*Anyone* can violate laws. Not just arabs, or Iranians, or Kashmiri, but *anyone*. Most people don't, not because they're civic-minded or particularly nice, but because they are afraid of the consequences of their actions. Most people, of any ethnicity, never develop pasta stage whereby they do anything other than follow laws for the sake of not getting in trouble. There's all sorts of research into different stages of moral development that attest to this.

You take away the restrictions, and people with less conviction will start taking advantage of it. This is why laws exist; not to convict the few who do, but to deter the many who want to.

Aloha Flight 243 showed that if you're buckled in, you won't necessarily be blown out of a jet, even if it looses a few feet of hull. For that matter, some of the flight attendants weren't buckled in and managed to survive.

One flight attendant,unfortunately, happened to be in the area where the hull was lost and ending up being swept out. Of course, given the size of the hole, it isn't surprizing.

The surprizing part is that the jet actually held together and was still flyable.

The DC10 like the boeing has outward opening cargo doors which can cause problems but in the DC10 the rear hatch is a real problem as when it opens at alitude it causes the rear passanger compartment floor to fall in and takes out all the control elements to the tail plane, now there is a triple redundant system in place here but the draw back is where they come to activate the flight surfaces and this is where the damage is done and it doesn't matter how many redundant systems that you have they all have to make contact with the control surfaces at the same point. Now if this is damaged or in the case of the DC10 destroyed the aircraft is on a hidding to nothing and there is no way to keep the thing in the air let alone stear or land the thing. When this happens the aircraft MUST spread itself over a long area of ground but not fall directly from the shy it is more like a gental uncontrolled desent.
Now with the execption of Concord {which will soon be out of service} and Airbus all comerical aircraft come from the US and to save space in the cargo holds all new aircraft have outward opening cargo doors it was one of these that failed in the incident that Oldfar was refering to near Hawai and it caused several rows of passangers to disapear out the resulting hole {most of these went through the inboard engine as well so they didn't suffer but it did severe damage to the engine in question. I don't know if your aircraft controlling body in the US has a web site where they report the results of all incidents but if they do it would make interesting reading.
With modern airframes they can suffer very big holes and still stay in the air but a very small hole in the right area can cause the total loss of the aircraft particuarly with the "Fly By Wire Type" as these are dependant on their onboard computers to keep them inthe air in a controlled manner.

However the main thing here that I find interesting is the belief that aircraft like the british designed Comet was an unsafe aircract and the Boeing is a safe aircraft, it doesn't seem to matter that both the British and Boeing where in a race to develop the first passange carring comerical aircraft {which the British won} but because of a design flaw the Comet lost a few aircraft in short order and Boeing redesign their 707 so it didn't suffer the same fate {thank God for the aircrash investigators from Fainbrough for solving that one.} But then again those people wrote the book on aircraft crash investigations which now is followed the world over.
Then I suspose I could mention which country the person responsible for coming up with the idea of the aircraft "Black Box" came from couldn't I?

I didn't even mention KAPTAN wiring once in the above posts

The screener's job is to keep ALL dangerous people from getting to the aircraft. If, in the process of this, he screens more Arabs, white males, blacks, or whoever, we shouldn't complain. We should rather see if he is successful in keeping dangerous people from getting on the plane.

That's all I'm worried about when I fly.

If we want to know what the 2nd amendment really means, we should study the writings of the Founding Fathers, and also how things were when the amendment was written.

I believe that such a study would indicate that each individual has the right to own a firearm.

If we don't like that, then we should amend the constitution to clearly state what we want the situation to be.

However, in this enlightened age, the standard method of "changing" the constitution is to find a sympathetic Federal judge to state that the constitution doesn't say a particular thing, and then THAT becomes the law of the land, rather than what the constitution actually says.

That's what the pro-homosexual crowd did several years ago in Colorado. 2/3 of theColorado voters voted to amend the Colorado constitution to remove special rights for homosexuals. But Judge Robert Hand said that this was "unconstitutional".

Amazing that in our government "of the people, by the people, for the people", a "right" which appears NOWHERE in the constitution should take precedence over a 2/3 majority vote directly by the people!

Isn't that why we have courts in the first place to control the excesses of Government? I'm not sure about the US however in most countries there is the Doctrin of the Seperation of Powers which ensures that no Government can overstep the mark against personal freedoms like the rulling in Calafinia recently {at least I think it was there but as I didn't pay much attention I'm not completely sure} where the court rulled that male homosexualls had the right to do whatever in the privacy of their own home.
Now I may not agree with this type of action but I do acept that someone in the privacy of their own home has a right to privacy without the police kicking to door in just to see what you may be doing. To me this is a waste of police resources that could be better used elswere. Then there was the aborition rulling in the Supereme Court in the US {is that the right name?]
Now I don't care if you are for or against aborition but I don't think that someone else has the right to tell me what to do either. It wasn't so long ago that our church leaders where telling us how to vote at ellections and this to me defeats the purpose of elections in the first place.
Then there is the stupid law that makes it illegial to kill yourself, after all what can they p[ossibly do to you after you have killed yourself?
The main thing here is it is up to the Government to make Laws and the Courts to Rule if they are Legal as no Government can pass Illegial Laws and honestly expect them to be enforced without challange.

In the US, there are three branches of govt: judicial, legislative, and executive. They are SUPPOSED to work as follows:

* Legislative makes the laws.
* Judicial interprets what the laws mean.
* Executive enforces the laws.

So, no matter how noble the cause, the courts are not supposed to "create" laws. They are merely supposed to determine what the legislature meant when it wrote a particular law, then apply that understanding to the case at hand. In this way, only elected officials are writing the laws.

The problem in the US these days is that the judiciary, from the lowest court all the way up to the Supreme Court, are going beyond interpreting the laws written by the legislature, and are in effect creating new laws.

Example: Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court decision which "legalized" abortion in the US. There was no law dealing with this issue; the Supreme Court took a supposed right to "privacy" (not found ANYWHERE in the constitution), and used that "right" to impose abortion on demand over the entire country. The only thing approaching a right to privacy is the "illegal search and seizure" amendment, and perhaps the "can't be forced to testify against yourself" amendment. By really stretching the rightsgranted in the US constitution, they created a new law. But this "law" is, in fact, illegal, because it wasn't created in any legal way.

If the people of the US want to have abortion rights, then they should get such a law passed, or amend the constitution. It is a very underhanded approach to push such things through the courts, especially the Supreme Court. These judges and justices serve for life; they aren't accountable to anyone; they can never be voted out.

The judiciary in the US has become, in effect, a nobility. But that is unconstitutional, because the constitution clearly says that there shall be no nobility in the US.

As far as punishing the whole class because of a single spitball which hit the teacher, that's how we were treated in US Navy basic training. If one person talked out of turn, we all got in trouble.

I'll never forget the time we were doing pushups, and our company commander said that he didn't want to hear another word from anyone. Stupid me, I said, "Yes Sir", and he said, "Phelps just bought you all 10 more pushups!" Everyone hated me for that, but I learned to keep my mouth shut!

...the excesses of Government. Actually, at times, they add to the excesses of government, at least in my opinion.

In the U.S. the courts are a branch of government itself. Our government consists of three separate and equal branches of government. We have the Executive branch (The President, his cabinet, etc.), the Legislative branch (Congress - the Senate and the House of Representatives), and the Judicial branch (the court system). So all three, or any of the three, branches are, technically, the government.

The theory is that the three branches will provide checks and balances to ensure that no single branch can get too powerful. For example, Congress may pass, with a simple majority, a bill introducing a new law (in both the Senate and the House - they vote separately), but then the President must either sign or veto the bill. He/She has veto power, and can send it back to Congress to either rewrite or vote to override the veto, which would require a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority. (Two-thirds is tough to do, as it generally means members of Congress have to cross party lines and vote with the opposition party.) Then the Judicial branch - the courts - are there to determine the constitutionality of thelaws, how the laws work together, etc.

The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, could strike down a law, calling it unconstitutional. Then, of course, Congress could attempt to amend the Constitution (add to or take from). But that's no easy task either, as two-thirds of the individual states legislators (and there are 50 of those) must ratify that amendment.

There are those who criticize "gridlock", but I'm not one of them. Gridlock is good. Gridlock ensures that we don't act too hastily -or too "one sided". And, in my opinion, gridlock was designed into the system.

T.J. and the boys were very bright indeed.

That's why appointing Supreme Court justices (and even lower court judges) is such a big deal. "Interpreting" the Constitution and/or the founder's "intent" has become the game of the day. Will he/she interpret with a liberal or conservative viewpoint? All too often, judges and justices appear to attempt to legislate from the bench. There have even been times when a president attempted to "pack the court" with justices that had a tendency to "interpret" in a way that was favorable to his party or causes.

Franklin Roosevelt, for example, attempted to take advantage of an ambiguity in the Constitution (the fact that the Constitution does not state the number of justices on the Supreme Court) by proposing new justices be added. I think heattempted to add three, to make a total of twelve. Of course, the three new ones would vote in his favor to "approve" his pet New Deal projects.

Gee, who would have thought that this thread would turn into a series of civics lectures?

On this side of the pond, here our courts are susposed to inturpert the LAW and pass judgment on various aspects of what has already been passed.
There have been numerious cases where a Law has passed through the Government and when challanged in the High Court found to be illegal. There have also been cases where Australia has Ratafied some International Treaties and then gone on to pass Laws which are in breach of these Treaties, however in these cases the International Treaties Have the Force Of Law and override any laws that where passed either before or after so in effect the International Treaties have a greater level of Law than our local ones.
The first one that comes to mind was a foregin national who was here on a visa and caught importing herion when the Government tried to deport him he invoked the International Treaty on the Rights of The Child {as he had a couple of children here to from memory to 2 different women}. In this case the Court rulled that it was not in the best interests of the children to have their father deported so he is now in jail and can not ever be deported.
I know it sounds stupid but then again whoever said that the law had to make sence?

Anyway it was only a question on just how the court system is susposed to work in the US & I'm thankful for the information.

Colin:

>...a foregin national who was here on a visa and caught importing herion when the Government tried to deport him he invoked the International Treaty on the Rights of The Child {as he had a couple of children here to from memory to 2 different women}. In this case the Court rulled that it was not in the best interests of the children to have their father deported so he is now in jail and can not ever be deported.

This guy sounds like a real upstanding "world" citizen (he evoked the "International" Treaty on the Rights of the Child). I'm sure he'll be a great father to his two children, now that he's back in Australia. (We all know that he obviously has been planning for a while to return and be with his children.)

I personally think the prosecution dropped the ball on this one. Seems to me that they could have demonstrated that the guy had no interest in being with his children by showing his itinerary for the past several years, and how he never had any interest in being a father to them until now.

Kind of like the guy who demands custody of his kid so he can live off the kid's Social Security benefits. (I know of a case like that.)

Since he can't be deported, will Australia keep him in jail till the kids are adults? And at that time, will they finally be able to deport him?

Sounds like Australia's courts are very much like US courts. They are supposed to INTERPRET the law, but in actuality they MAKE law, and stick their noses where they don't belong.

Sounds like you all have an illegal nobility (the judiciary), just like us.

"So apparently you agree that "freedom of expression" is a worthwhile thing. Would you fight for that right for yourself or for others? If not, then what do you stand for? Anything?"

1) I stand for myself and those I believe in (which can be anybody).
2) Yes I would fight for my right to freedom, that is not the issue here. If I were captured by a foreign country, I would fight for the right to be free and do my own thing. I wouldn't fight for the government's objectives if I didn't feel they were in my or my neighbours best interests, just for the sake of supporting the Canadian government.

"Here in the US, we watch the politicians, and vote them out if they do bad things. THAT IS FREEDOM! "

uh.......sure you do, guess that's why Bush still runs the country after his freedom "Mission" of "Liberating" Iraq or at least trying to miserably.
Oh well, 1 more day and you can wave your flag again.

.....but sincerely,
Happy 4th everyone!!
Enjoy a safe hoiday with your families!

OM

This was merely a "right back at you statement"

back up a couple of posts.

Well jim, like the old saying goes, "don't poke the bear."

back up a few posts and you'll see why I have picked at JimH for his defensive statements. I never took a shot at the US specifically, JimH decided to make it a personal attack. Apparently any mention of the US is now a personal atack.

Hey tough guy, slow down.

"Oh and you can shot someone who broke into your hose whether they are armed or unarmed - at least before you critize the American system - Learn something and get an education about it ... "

that's why my post ended with "Welcome to Canada", contrary to popular beliefs, there are other countries in the world, go figure huh?
Canada is actually a completely different country than the US, no I'm not joking, we have a different border and get this, we have our OWNlaws! (I know this is probably all a little too much for you to take in, so maybe you could take all your "experience" and go snap an American's neck the way you so proudly state you can without repercussions. I know where I'll go next time I feel like midlessly killing people and getting away with it.

As for the holiday on the 4th, enjoy it, you're welcome? I get one too, as well as the 5th, 6th and any other day I choose.
I'm not strapped to a chair or locked in a cubical for some massive corporation, now that I call freedom!

OM

I am not sure I understand your response regarding free speech. Are you stating that freedom of speech in some way should provide a forum or an acceptance to that speech? If not, what is your point?

You seem to think a lot of information is beingwithheld from the American public by the US government. Perhaps you could provide some specifics.

My personal position is that the right to vote and to hold office should be earned, not simply given based on birthplace or naturalization processes. What we buy to cheaply we value to little. All other individual rights should be based on citizenship.

I expect to act as a guest when in other countries, and expect visitors to my country to do likewise. This should resolve the rights of non-citizens in any country.

I think what you are saying is that we should revert to the days of cowboys and indians and vigilante missions.
I must be wrong though, I'm sure any logical or even sane person would never revert to such a pathetic lifestyle.

You seem to feel that if you were allowed to walk on a plane with a gun to defend yourself, you'd be better off. I probably misunderstood this too because it is insane of course. Am I to believe that your post was sarcastic tongue in cheek?
i sure hope so, the world isn't a safe place with thet mentality floating around, maybe you need an Iraqi vacation to meet some like minded opinions.

If the airlines were doing the searches on their own, competitors could offer a "take your chance" option. The free market would determine the value of the security measures as perceived by the customers.

In this case, the search is a government mandate. There is no freedom of choice either for the passengers or the airlines.

Vigilantes were groups of citizens who rounded up suspected criminals and had an ad hoc trial and execution.

The cowboys and Indians scenario you refer to is a Hollywood myth. In reality, there were very few showdowns and shootouts. Those that did occur were more like the criminal gang activity we see in some areas today.

A society where individuals take responsibility for both their actions and their own safety is far different. As for being armed, this does not have to mean firearms. However, today almost any item that could conceivably be used as an offensive or defensive weapon is prohibited aboard aircraft.

"You seem to think a lot of information is being withheld from the American public by the US government. Perhaps you could provide some specifics"

You're an absolute fool if you truly believe that the government doesn't hide information from the public (even as a public service to keep sanity).
not being in office myself, I'm not privy to the information and therefore cannot giove examples. Obviously, if I could, then the information wouldn't have been witheld.

Who are you to feel you are entitled to "classified government information?" there's a phrase that allows the government to hide anything they want from the public eye. No I'm not talking about the whole Area 51 thing, but reality. TV stations are biased for obvious reasons, the public only hears what the government allows them, or wants them to. Same in Canada and many other countries.

Wake up and smell the bacon, did the American news broadcast how the US Marines almost lost occupation in the suburbs of Baghdad when their miarines caused mass rioting that needed the UK troops to resecure the area? I think not.