• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"If you give up your liberty for your safety, you will end up with neither" -Franklin

Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

Franklin wasn't talking about actual safety. He was talking about giving up fundamental liberites for temporary, perceived safety.

And IMO the TSA, DHS, and the rules/regulations of recent years - and the WBI body imaging - exemplify giving up fundamental liberites for temporary, perceived safety.
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

And IMO the TSA, DHS, and the rules/regulations of recent years - and the WBI body imaging - exemplify giving up fundamental liberites for temporary, perceived safety.

Which ones, exactly?
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

- The whole body imaging for one - a measure that radiates us and gives TSOs the ability to "stearch" us in ways that aren't even allwed by real cops except for extremely limit, very controlled circumstances. Continually pushing this despite the fact that it doesn't even work, and hasn't been proven safe.

- The liquids ban, and the thing some airport TSOs are doing now where they use test strips and [either hold them over or dunk them in] to passenger's drinks to test for explosives.

- The more recent act of going around and swabbing hands with a solution that doesn't even tell the difference between glycerin from explosives and glycerine from soaps.

- Airport photography - allowed at the checkpoints by the TSA, in airports, people still get harassed. What, is asking questions that much harder than being a biligerent asshole?

Those are just 4 examples off the top of my head.
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

Question: What if you violate your values and principles to achieve the illusion of safety?

That's bad, too, right?
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

Franklin wasn't talking about actual safety. He was talking about giving up fundamental liberites for temporary, perceived safety. If there is a serious safety concern, and it's not fleeting, that's different.

Of course everyone should always be careful, that's a given, but overreaction on mere possibilities of threats is way overdoing it, especially during an election year when media propaganda and gloom and doom run rampant.

ricksfolly
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

Franklin wasn't talking about actual safety. He was talking about giving up fundamental liberites for temporary, perceived safety. If there is a serious safety concern, and it's not fleeting, that's different.

"Safety" is just another media buzzword with no specific meaning, but it does keep thousands of people working. The downside is the possibility of some overreacting to otherwise harmless situations, and the following media blitz.

ricksfolly
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

How exacty is body imaging a loss of real liberty? You don't lose anything, and aren't harmed by it. At most, it's an inconvenience.
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

How exacty is body imaging a loss of real liberty? You don't lose anything, and aren't harmed by it. At most, it's an inconvenience.
Privacy is a liberty.
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

Privacy is a liberty.

There is no right to public privacy. You are out in the open, in public, using a service. You are scanned out in the open as a condition of using the service. You can always not use the service. Moreover, these scanners don't actually show you. They show a pixalated image.

My privacy is not "violated" when I go to an airport and am on CCTV eithe.
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

There is no right to public privacy. You are out in the open, in public, using a service.


Except that inherent limit to the right of PHYSICAL privacy [as privacy takes on MANY forms] is in of itself limited.

For example, strip searching. Cops can't do it for the most part - and those cases where they can are restricted to VERY VERY controlled circumstances. Why should people who aren't law enforcement do a digital version of it?


You are scanned out in the open as a condition of using the service. You can always not use the service.

Except the little part you forgot about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT being the people doing it?

Moreover, these scanners don't actually show you. They show a pixalated image.

[citation needed], and no, the purposely manipulated, shrunken down, and pixalated images provided by the TSA IMO are not good enough. I want to see REAL images, FULL resolution and UNALTERED. Come on, it doesn't take a genius to see how manipulated those images are. If they weren't such a big deal, why censor them when they air them on TV?

My privacy is not "violated" when I go to an airport and am on CCTV eithe.

CCTV =/= WBI.

It's a loss of liberty to me to be forced to be irradiated and strip search from people who are not law enforcement without probable cause or any of the EXTREMELY controlled/limited circumstances where cops are legally allowed to. This is not a goddammed prison, this is an AIRPORT. This isn't Soviet Russia, this is the U S A, where such extreme measures of "security" have been rendered unnecessary and vile for so long. What has happened to us to make a good proportion of the population so scared that they throw away all common sense and logic for something that doesn't even work?
 
Last edited:
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

Except that inherent limit to the right of PHYSICAL privacy [as privacy takes on MANY forms] is in of itself limited.

For example, strip searching. Cops can't do it for the most part - and those cases where they can are restricted to VERY VERY controlled circumstances. Why should people who aren't law enforcement do a digital version of it?

This isn't a strip search, and it's not random, either. It's under a pretty controlled situation: a precondition for boarding a flight. Law enforcement shouldn't need to do it. Any other time, a Libertarian would be all gung-ho for private groups doing it. If it's not goverment law doing it, it should be a-okay to you. First you say it's gov't, then you say it's not. Which is it? Is the government law enforcement behind it, or not? If not, who cares? If so, you're implying it would be okay, so long as the people doing it are gov't.



Except the little part you forgot about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT being the people doing it?

So? And you just said it's not any government law enforcement doing it, so which is it?


[citation needed], and no, the purposely manipulated, shrunken down, and pixalated images provided by the TSA IMO are not good enough. I want to see REAL images, FULL resolution and UNALTERED. Come on, it doesn't take a genius to see how manipulated those images are. If they weren't such a big deal, why censor them when they air them on TV?

I have seen the images. They aren't even realistic images. They give a bloated, cartoonish pixelated image of your body. That's hardly as bad as you're saying, andyou can always claim anything's not "good enough or altered." That's a very weasleworded phrase.


quote]
CCTV =/= WBI.[/quote]

Similiar in that you don't have privacy in public, and a private airport can allow either.

It's a loss of liberty to me to be forced to be irradiated and strip search from people who are not law enforcement without probable cause or any of the EXTREMELY controlled/limited circumstances where cops are legally allowed to. This is not a goddammed prison, this is an AIRPORT. This isn't Soviet Russia, this is the U S A, where such extreme measures of "security" have been rendered unnecessary and vile for so long. What has happened to us to make a good proportion of the population so scared that they throw away all common sense and logic for something that doesn't even work?

That's a bit dramatic with the whole "irradiation thing." You make it seem as if you're being given some treatment. It's not hurting you. You are irradiated every day you walk outside. This isn't harming you. At most, it's a small inconvenience.

You are not being forced to use the service, so you always have a choice to not do so. By flying, you agree to the terms to fly. There's nothing that harms or restricts your liberty to go through metal dectors and scanners. A company has every right to check you for weapons.

Are you hiding something you shouldn't be? Then you have nothing to worry about. It's all good. NO one cares about your pixelated blue body, so you need to stop being paranoid.
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

This isn't a strip search, and it's not random, either.

Seeing you naked is not a "strip search" how?

It's under a pretty controlled situation: a precondition for boarding a flight.

Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Law enforcement shouldn't need to do it.

In the particular case if airport security here, it isn't law enforcement doing this.

Any other time, a Libertarian would be all gung-ho for private groups doing it.

The TSA IS a federally controled, federally run organization.

If it's not goverment law doing it, it should be a-okay to you.

No, it [being WBI] shouldn't be OK at all IMO.

Trying to pigeonhole me into a contradiction that doesn't exist, are we?

First you say it's gov't, then you say it's not. Which is it?

I've been fairly consistent - it is government, always has been post-911. Government is not mutually inclusive of law enforcement you know, in that you can be govt. without being law enforcement.


Is the government law enforcement behind it, or not?

Government is not mutually inclusive of law enforcement you know, in that you can be govt. without being law enforcement.


A certain set of documents [the bill of rights and the constitution] become that much more important in that case.

And you just said it's not any government law enforcement doing it, so which is it?

no, I said it wasn't LAW ENFORCEMENT doing it, but a government program that doesn't have the same legal authority as cops.

I have seen the images. They aren't even realistic images. They give a bloated, cartoonish pixelated image of your body.

Except the ones that they reveal to the public have been manipulated - are far from full resolution, pixalated, overexposed, etc.

We are not getting the real picture, and I refuse to support the idea that this cartoony image is real until I see it with my own eyes, full resolution, un-manipulated. They will probably claim that is SSI though, as usual. :roll:

andyou can always claim anything's not "good enough or altered." That's a very weasleworded phrase.

Except I have the intellectual honesty to not point and claim "good enough or altered" in the manor you fear, so lets not go into this with any undue presumption of each other ok?

Similiar in that you don't have privacy in public, and a private airport can allow either.

PHYSICAL privacy up to a point though - there is a difference between being watched on CCTV and being X-RAYED in the manner WBI functions.

And don't even get me started on their claim that "it can't store, save, or transmit images" - from a purely computer science perspective that is complete bull**** using the technology we have today - that they use - and how computers work.

That's a bit dramatic with the whole "irradiation thing." You make it seem as if you're being given some treatment. It's not hurting you.

There was a study recently where it was revealed that the TSA knew nothing about how much radiation was being released from these machines, and in fact many times more radiation was being released from these machines than they were admitting.



You are irradiated every day you walk outside. This isn't harming you.

And not releasing as much radiation as these machines more likely than not.

At most, it's a small inconvenience.

To you perhaps.

You are not being forced to use the service, so you always have a choice to not do so

Bull.

If you want to get places rapidly, you need to fly. By needing to get across vast masses of land quickly, and across OCEANS rapidly, you need to fly. By being in a field of work that required a lot of travel rapidly, you need to fly.

There is just no way around it. A luxury to most it may be, but that doesn't negate its vitality and necessity to others.

[less verbose way of putting it to me: Find me a way to take the bus to Australia if I ever wanted].

Even still, the TSA and their often invasive tactics are infiltrating other modes of transportation. It won't be enough to say "use Y or Z instead."

By flying, you agree to the terms to fly.

Last I checked, the contract of carriage for an individual airline, and airport security set up by the GOVERNMENT were unrelated to one another. And last I checked, the government had to abide by the constitution, and bill of rights.

There's nothing that harms or restricts your liberty to go through metal dectors and scanners.

Medal detectors I was not arguing against, you dolt, I was arguing against body imaging - which could go up against the 4th amendment. Ohio legislators are taking a swing at the tech, and so is the ACLU - very telling isn't it?

A company has every right to check you for weapons.

And what part of this being an act on the part of the federal government and not the individual airlines are you having trouble understanding?

Are you hiding something you shouldn't be?

None of your business.

Simple as that.

Nothing to hide is an impossible state of mind - you have privacy, you have things to hide - it is human nature... and I'd appreciate it if you brought argument instead of TSA talking points and mindless sheeplism.

At least I actually read what is going on and have the balls to call out BS when I see it. Clearly the TSA's word is good enough for you - even when the companies behind the tech they use, news reports, computer science, and basic logic disagrees.
 
Re: "If you give up your liberty for your safety, you will end up with neither" -Fran

And another thing, this organization is not free from controversy that does make the innocent cringe - how about those people harassed unnecessarily, the people victim of the TSA agent who thought it'd be a big joke to plant cocaine on passengers, the people who have been forced to remove vital things like leg braces and crutches when they weren't legally required to remove them - or those who were coerced into taking WBI when alternatives were available and passengers were required to be notified of the optional nature?

How about those TSA agents responsible for completely ****ing up the morning commute in DFW and ORD by climbing on PITOT TUBES and other sensitive probes/equipment on aircraft all while trying to find a way to BREAK INTO THE AIRCRAFT? And the TSA having the BALLS to fine AMERICAN AIRLINES for the TSA's stupidity?


A money wasting monkey organization if you ask me.
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

There is no right to public privacy. You are out in the open, in public, using a service. You are scanned out in the open as a condition of using the service. You can always not use the service. Moreover, these scanners don't actually show you. They show a pixalated image.

My privacy is not "violated" when I go to an airport and am on CCTV eithe.

What is public privacy?
 
Re: IF YOU GIVE UP YOUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR SAFTY YOU WILL END UP WITH NITHER " Benjamin

There is no right to public privacy. You are out in the open, in public, using a service. You are scanned out in the open as a condition of using the service. You can always not use the service. Moreover, these scanners don't actually show you. They show a pixalated image.

My privacy is not "violated" when I go to an airport and am on CCTV eithe.

If there wasn't such a thing as public privacy then wearing clothes would be illegal....
 
Back
Top Bottom