-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
US to step up security at hotels and malls
- Thread starter Bronson
- Start date
stainless1911
Banned
I don't mind a little extra security as long as we dont sacrifice freedom to do it. Trouble is, the two don't mix well, and the authority can't be trusted with it. Even if todays authority could be trusted with it, tomorrows authority cannot.
NHCGRPR45
Regular Member
Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Ben Franklin.
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Ben Franklin.
I don't mind extra security but like stainless said, I am not willing to give up freedom for it. And fear is the surest way to capitalize on trajic events. Knee jerk reactions to make everyone safer rarely makes anyone safer. IMO
PT111
Regular Member
I am beginning to think that maybe the two are opposites, especially after reading many of the posts on this and other forums. The articles talk about the addition of 100's of cameras but I think there was a thread on here talking about that same thing a day or two ago. We want to keep all illegals out of the country but get upset when we are stopped at the border and made to prove that we are US citizens. I don't know of any way to step up security without stepping on someones rights. Some may say there is a fine line between the two but I see a big line and the only question is how far to cross it.
stainless1911
Banned
What they are missing is the golden opportunity to use us as law abiding armed citizens as part of the solution, instead of the problem, or looking at us as subjects, or suspects.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
The US doesn't really want to stop illegal immigration. Follow the money. If the US really wanted to slow the flow, they could do it in 6 months.
1) Start executing a few illegals.
2) Start jailing the employers that hire them.
30 Repeat as necessary.
The fact is illegals provide a cheap labor force (relating to cheap food costs.) and a political benefit.
stainless1911
Banned
+1
No point in putting a man with a gun on a fence if he can't shoot those who cross it.
No point in putting a man with a gun on a fence if he can't shoot those who cross it.
JoeSparky
Centurion
I say, either ENFORCE THE LAW we currently have ALL THE TIME, 100% of the TIME
OR
Repeal the law you won't enforce!
Either way there will be political fallout but CHOOSING TO NOT MAKE A DECISION
IS MAKING A DECISION! And it too, has political fallout!
Michigander
Regular Member
I'm not real good with electronics, other than cars and some home appliances, so I encourage anyone who knows better to tell me I'm talking out of my ass.
I saw a TV program the other day where they showed how many modern security cameras, such as those used in Casinos can actually read someones retina from 200 feet, and ID them. I suspect that many of the new cameras will be designed to do just that, which if true is something I have a real problem with. That is some real Orwellian **** which we the people must not stand for if we wish to remain free. It's bad enough that cell phones can already be used to easily track people. The government cannot and must not be allowed to know where we're all at, because they should fear us, and we the law abiding shouldn't ever fear them, nor should we ever fear a fake threat they generate to keep us afraid, and garbage like these cameras amount to little more than a form of government exerted control.
I saw a TV program the other day where they showed how many modern security cameras, such as those used in Casinos can actually read someones retina from 200 feet, and ID them. I suspect that many of the new cameras will be designed to do just that, which if true is something I have a real problem with. That is some real Orwellian **** which we the people must not stand for if we wish to remain free. It's bad enough that cell phones can already be used to easily track people. The government cannot and must not be allowed to know where we're all at, because they should fear us, and we the law abiding shouldn't ever fear them, nor should we ever fear a fake threat they generate to keep us afraid, and garbage like these cameras amount to little more than a form of government exerted control.
Last edited:
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
The problem is more a question of accuracy than ability. Facial recognition, which I presume would be more "accurate" has a variable positive rate based on facial traits which match known subjects. From what I understand, the use of this software is problematic because (A.) the false positive rate is so high that almost everyone is tagged as matching a known felon, subject, etc. or (B.), the software matches no one. Here is a knowledgeable perspective: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/08/face_recognitio_1.html
There are always weaknesses in every system, and the people who wish to thwart the system will always be able to. The reliance on this sort of technology even has an appropriate name: Security Theater (Schneier).
Don't think the new measures at airports can be thwarted, think again:
see this link: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20101116-31209.html
What a waste...