|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Montecresto 
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 12:27 pm |
|
   |
TSA working stadiums, car racing events, and other entertainment venues.
Fans can expect to be watched, sniffed and pawed as they enter the Superdome.
“Fans can expect to pass through metal detectors and a pat-down search. After the pat-down search, fans will be asked to unzip any coats. All bags will be x-rayed,” Miller said.
Gamma ray scanners can see through six inches of steal, monitored from a command center.
“TSA of course is working on making sure the airspace around the stadium is closed during the game. Also working providing K-9 teams and screeners and all the rest, said Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013....er-gras
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39553
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 12:34 pm |
|
 |
The World Trade Center Towers were very tall buildings so, yes, they cast their shadows a very long ways.
Hopefully as far as the bottom of the Indian Ocean where bin Laden rots. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 12:58 pm |
|
|
Yep. A nation that is at once arrogant and insecure.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 1:12 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 31 2013, 10:09 am)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 9:58 am)
QUOTE Yep. A nation that is at once arrogant and insecure. While you see killing Bin Laden as "arrogant" I simply see it as justice, justice too long delayed but justice nevertheless. As far as establishing procedures to make it just that much harder for the Jihadists to kill more Americans? That's not insecurity it's pragmatism.
Au contraire! I too see the capturing and killing of bin Laden as justice -- pure and simple. He needed to be captured for what he did... and he was killed because he resisted capture.
Just where did I ever say the hunting down and killing of bin Laden an act of arrogance?
OTOH, to turn our nation practically into one big camp of surveillance -- that's not practicality. That's bureaucratic stupidity.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39553
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 1:17 pm |
|
|
So security measures at the SuperBowl are unnecessary "bureaucratic stupidity"?
I disagree.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 1:31 pm |
|
|
(Montecresto @ Jan. 31 2013, 9:27 am)
QUOTE TSA working stadiums, car racing events, and other entertainment venues. Fans can expect to be watched, sniffed and pawed as they enter the Superdome. “Fans can expect to pass through metal detectors and a pat-down search. After the pat-down search, fans will be asked to unzip any coats. All bags will be x-rayed,” Miller said. Gamma ray scanners can see through six inches of steal, monitored from a command center. “TSA of course is working on making sure the airspace around the stadium is closed during the game. Also working providing K-9 teams and screeners and all the rest, said Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary. http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013....er-gras
While I am no alarmist... I can see how the 'security' industry might wish to encourage our bureaucrats to keep investing in "more and better" security apparatus -- so companies can keep peddling the latest equipment, software, gadgets... This generates jobs and profits.
And I can see our media joining the bandwagon -- pressing the fear button generates reader attention.
And why would bureaucrats fight off their new sense of power? As well, it's always good (for them) to make us believe that they're continually working harder to keep us safe...
Put all that together -- plus a citizenry that's generally apathetic and easily manipulated -- and there, you have it. The next generation likely won't know any different -- of course you walk through chemical/metal detectors whenever you enter any public venue. And of course, cameras are everywhere, just like streetlights... And of course 'everything' is monitored....
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 3:09 pm |
|
|
Discussing with you, HSF, is like an old discussion I had with another member who thankfully doesn't post anymore. It goes something like this:
Me: We shouldn't have to spend each year on defense more than the next 17 highest spending countries combined.
The other guy: Well, Ben, let's just get rid of all weapons and rely on goodwill then! Stupid people who think if we just get rid of all our weapons, then we won't have any enemies...
And same goes with you, HSF. I talk about having too much bureaucratic security in general terms -- and your idiotic response is, and I quote: "So security measures at the SuperBowl are unnecessary "bureaucratic stupidity".
Something about the dumbing down of our society...
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
EastieTrekker
Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 3:11 pm |
|
|
Generally, I think stepped up security measures for big events, like the Super Bowl, are appropriate. Someone crazy enough to make an attack could rack up the casualties quickly in a setting like that.
However, what's the difference between the Super Bowl, and a game at Michigan State University? That stadium holds ~100,000 people, so any big rivalry game probably has similar attendance levels as the Super Bowl.
My take - probably a little overboard, on the Super Bowl, but if I was in attendance I wouldn't complain about the extra 5 minute hassle, even if it only delivered a "perceived" increase in safety.
--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 3:13 pm |
|
|
That's called nuancing and exercising judgment, Eastie. Something that escapes HSF -- who thinks that people who believe we have too much or the wrong kinds of security must mean that they don't want any security measures at all...
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Marmotstew
Group: Members
Posts: 8688
Joined: May 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 3:49 pm |
|
|
Meh. I can sneak in all the booze and guns at Rockies games. This being one of the most televised events in America the added security is reasonable. And is it the government or the NFL beefing up security?
--------------
I'd rather be Facebooking watching videos of cats licking themselves
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 5:13 pm |
|
|
hbfa:
OP's post wasn't just about Super Bowl. It's a lot wider coverage. I think we've all come to expect heightened security measures during Super Bowl or Olympics type events. But it looks like security measures are being constantly expanded -- for better and for worse.
Who (or what) ate my lunch? It's not any kind of disagreement about how much security we ought to have -- that's completely subjective would have been completely understandable. It's the kind of "in your face" retort -- not arguing whether your position is right or wrong and why -- but a retort that tries to make you look like a total idiot -- as if you are espousing for NO security at all -- which, of course, is completely ridiculous.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Marmotstew
Group: Members
Posts: 8688
Joined: May 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 5:15 pm |
|
|
Spending 80 times as much as the rest of the world on the military is different than making people go through medal detectors and checking your backpack. Just sayin'
--------------
I'd rather be Facebooking watching videos of cats licking themselves
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 7:44 pm |
|
|
(hbfa @ Jan. 31 2013, 4:08 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 2:13 pm)
QUOTE which, of course, is completely ridiculous. And the notion that we are turning our nation "into one big camp of surveillance" is equally ridiculous.
I wish you were right... but feel free to google around for which government in the world makes the most requests for personal info. from Google and Twitter (to name but two popular social websites). Not just a lot of requests -- but the most in the world. Add to that the ever increasing number of surveillance cameras... and you get the idea.
But we are not just talking about our government -- as pervasive as that might be. Factor in the countless (and ever increasing) private surveillance cameras too!
The GREAT THING is that potential criminals will think twice (the UPS guy who was caught red handed on camera trying to steal an iPad comes to mind) -- but when tools become ubiquitous -- the potential for abuse rises too. Yes, potential, but not "ridiculously" remote either.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
buddero
Group: Members
Posts: 777
Joined: Jan. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 8:13 pm |
|
|
I was on bus from Chiang Mai to a Burmese town on the border and there was this guy going on about how he couldn't bear living in the U.S. because of all the heavy-handed security. We went through two checkpoints (everybody off the bus and check all IDs) well before we got to the border and one checkpoint on the way back to CM. And there was the usual border stuff. The guy appreciated me pointing out that this trip comprised more random domestic security checks in a day than I'd had in 60+ years in the US.
--------------
Reach out your hand, if your cup be empty
If your cup is full, may it be again
Journal and links to refugees, backpacking, travel in Asia, photos, honky-tonk angels, other beautiful things...
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
JimInMD
Group: Members
Posts: 3112
Joined: Feb. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 8:19 pm |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 8:15 pm)
QUOTE
(buddero @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:13 pm)
QUOTE I was on bus from Chiang Mai to a Burmese town on the border and there was this guy going on about how he couldn't bear living in the U.S. because of all the heavy-handed security. We went through two checkpoints (everybody off the bus and check all IDs) well before we got to the border and one checkpoint on the way back to CM. And there was the usual border stuff. The guy appreciated me pointing out that this trip comprised more random domestic security checks in a day than I'd had in 60+ years in the US. Is that a fair comparison -- US vs. Burma? How about US vs. Canada or Europe or Japan... you know, open societies vs. other open societies??
Isn't London well noted for its extensive array of security cameras?
--------------
Checking out for a while, find me on FB.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 8:21 pm |
|
|
(JimInMD @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:19 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 8:15 pm)
QUOTE
(buddero @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:13 pm)
QUOTE I was on bus from Chiang Mai to a Burmese town on the border and there was this guy going on about how he couldn't bear living in the U.S. because of all the heavy-handed security. We went through two checkpoints (everybody off the bus and check all IDs) well before we got to the border and one checkpoint on the way back to CM. And there was the usual border stuff. The guy appreciated me pointing out that this trip comprised more random domestic security checks in a day than I'd had in 60+ years in the US. Is that a fair comparison -- US vs. Burma? How about US vs. Canada or Europe or Japan... you know, open societies vs. other open societies?? Isn't London well noted for its extensive array of security cameras?
Yes.
While not as onerous as Burma (not by a long shot) -- I see that as a continuous encroachment of a "watchful" government. For better and for worse, both, of course.
Jim -- do I believe our government is too "big brotherly" today? Yes, a bit, but not devastatingly so. My concern is the encroachment (see #8 above) -- how different currents seem to be pushing us along, and how there really is no "end point"...
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
buddero
Group: Members
Posts: 777
Joined: Jan. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 8:59 pm |
|
|
No, it was in Thailand.
I share your concern about >security leading to >abuse. I don't even think it's potential - it's certain. At the same time, I've been way too close to several planned mass casualty events and about a mile from the guy who blew himself up in Bangkok last year. As intrusive or irritating and doofus as some security measures are, they seem like a necessary part of life these days.
--------------
Reach out your hand, if your cup be empty
If your cup is full, may it be again
Journal and links to refugees, backpacking, travel in Asia, photos, honky-tonk angels, other beautiful things...
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 9:02 pm |
|
|
(buddero @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:59 pm)
QUOTE No, it was in Thailand.
I share your concern about >security leading to >abuse. I don't even think it's potential - it's certain. At the same time, I've been way too close to several planned mass casualty events and about a mile from the guy who blew himself up in Bangkok last year. As intrusive or irritating and doofus as some security measures are, they seem like a necessary part of life these days.
Speaking for myself -- totally subjective and emotional subject...
I'd rather we remain a free and open society... with safeguards to prevent, say, 80% of potential incidents -- plus severe punishments and other deterrents toward would-be criminals -- than spending a whole lot more time, money, effort and curtailment of freedom -- to prevent, say, an additional 10%. We know we can never achieve 100%.
A rough comparison would be like managing traffic. We can ban driving altogether and eliminate deaths from careless or drunk drivers. But we don't do that because the cost to society is just too high. Instead, through a combination of better freeway design, education, and penalties -- we "manage" the risk to an "acceptable" level. Road deaths are in the tens of thousands each year, no?
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 31 2013, 11:53 pm |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 9:02 pm)
QUOTE
(buddero @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:59 pm)
QUOTE No, it was in Thailand.
I share your concern about >security leading to >abuse. I don't even think it's potential - it's certain. At the same time, I've been way too close to several planned mass casualty events and about a mile from the guy who blew himself up in Bangkok last year. As intrusive or irritating and doofus as some security measures are, they seem like a necessary part of life these days. Speaking for myself -- totally subjective and emotional subject... I'd rather we remain a free and open society... with safeguards to prevent, say, 80% of potential incidents -- plus severe punishments and other deterrents toward would-be criminals -- than spending a whole lot more time, money, effort and curtailment of freedom -- to prevent, say, an additional 10%. We know we can never achieve 100%. A rough comparison would be like managing traffic. We can ban driving altogether and eliminate deaths from careless or drunk drivers. But we don't do that because the cost to society is just too high. Instead, through a combination of better freeway design, education, and penalties -- we "manage" the risk to an "acceptable" level. Road deaths are in the tens of thousands each year, no?
Again I must agree.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23915
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 12:26 am |
|
|
(Montecresto @ Jan. 31 2013, 8:53 pm)
QUOTE
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 9:02 pm)
QUOTE
(buddero @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:59 pm)
QUOTE No, it was in Thailand.
I share your concern about >security leading to >abuse. I don't even think it's potential - it's certain. At the same time, I've been way too close to several planned mass casualty events and about a mile from the guy who blew himself up in Bangkok last year. As intrusive or irritating and doofus as some security measures are, they seem like a necessary part of life these days. Speaking for myself -- totally subjective and emotional subject... I'd rather we remain a free and open society... with safeguards to prevent, say, 80% of potential incidents -- plus severe punishments and other deterrents toward would-be criminals -- than spending a whole lot more time, money, effort and curtailment of freedom -- to prevent, say, an additional 10%. We know we can never achieve 100%. A rough comparison would be like managing traffic. We can ban driving altogether and eliminate deaths from careless or drunk drivers. But we don't do that because the cost to society is just too high. Instead, through a combination of better freeway design, education, and penalties -- we "manage" the risk to an "acceptable" level. Road deaths are in the tens of thousands each year, no? Again I must agree.
Thank you. 
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4795
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 9:22 am |
|
|
Careful planning can get someone with evil intent through the most stringent security and anyone or group willing to die to reach an objective cannot ultimately be stopped. Even top law enforcement agencies like the Secret Service will admit they can't stop a group (a single individual working alone is a different matter) willing to sacrifice all to take out the POTUS. All they can do is make it very expensive in terms of materiál and personnel.
Having said that, while I think pro football is akin to kiddie porn, security in an attempt to prevent an attack at the Superbowl* isn't extreme.
*All I know about the SB is it's a big deal in football (and that's more than I want to know) but I don't know or care why.
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 01 2013, 9:49 am |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Jan. 31 2013, 9:02 pm)
QUOTE
(buddero @ Jan. 31 2013, 5:59 pm)
QUOTE No, it was in Thailand.
I share your concern about >security leading to >abuse. I don't even think it's potential - it's certain. At the same time, I've been way too close to several planned mass casualty events and about a mile from the guy who blew himself up in Bangkok last year. As intrusive or irritating and doofus as some security measures are, they seem like a necessary part of life these days. Speaking for myself -- totally subjective and emotional subject... I'd rather we remain a free and open society... with safeguards to prevent, say, 80% of potential incidents -- plus severe punishments and other deterrents toward would-be criminals -- than spending a whole lot more time, money, effort and curtailment of freedom -- to prevent, say, an additional 10%. We know we can never achieve 100%. A rough comparison would be like managing traffic. We can ban driving altogether and eliminate deaths from careless or drunk drivers. But we don't do that because the cost to society is just too high. Instead, through a combination of better freeway design, education, and penalties -- we "manage" the risk to an "acceptable" level. Road deaths are in the tens of thousands each year, no?
Great point Ben2!
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
