/b

Twitter Updates

What People Say:
"I never thought I'd read the phrase Crazy Politico's Rantings in the NYT. I'll bet they never thought they'd print anything like that phrase either." TLB

Blogroll Me!

My Blog Rolls

American Flag Bloggers

American Flags

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Protect Us, Some Other Way

I love privacy advocates, and others, who are once again up in arms that the Department of Homeland Security is trying to protect people, but has to gather data to do it.

Evidently the ACLU, EFF, and others want to be safe, but they'd like the Homeland Security to figure out how to keep us that way through osmosis.

You see, any time DHS comes up with a way to screen passengers based on available information, the EFF and ACLU end up screaming bloody murder, and stopping the program.

Now, I understand one of the issues with the current DHS program. Travelers who are detained based on the info should have some recourse to check it's accuracy. Other than that, I have no issue with the idea of my travel plans, payment modes, etc, used to profile me.

They'll find that I use either my corporate Amex or a Visa Check Card to pay for tickets, never fly one way, always get window seats, don't order special meals, and only check luggage if my stay is more than 5 days.

If they want to check what I eat based on those cards when I travel they'll find I'm a steak person, who likes a couple of bourbons with dinner and I have a sweet tooth for chocolate cake afterwards.

I'd say the DHS should probably suspend USING the information, but continue to gather it. Then, in a year or so when a flagged traveler commits some sort of crime against someone, give the victim (or their family) the information on the traveler. Let them sue the ACLU and the EFF for the injuries incurred based on the fact that the person would have been detained had they not stopped the program. Of course, that's just crass and cold me talking, the government would never actually do something that makes that much sense.

I'm not sure how the ACLU would like them to find persons who pose a risk, they don't want them screened based on travel history, country of origin, name, religious preference, or any other readily identifiable information. Yet they've also participated in lawsuits against the government for failing to protect us from the 9/11 attacks. Exactly how should they have done that, ACLU supporters feel free to speak up.

Technorati Tags:, , , , ,

6Comments:

Blogger Lone Pony said...

This reminds me of what Dennis Miller had to say about the ACLU:

"And you know something, the American Civil Liberties Union, when they come out and say you never profile anybody who gets on an airplane. I say we create a new airline, called the ACLA, the American Civil Liberties Airline where you don't check anybody, you don't ask any questions, and let those morons fly on that one, okay? The rest of us want to be protected."

1:30 PM  
Blogger Praguetwin said...

They'll find that I use either my corporate Amex or a Visa Check Card to pay for tickets, never fly one way, always get window seats, don't order special meals, and only check luggage if my stay is more than 5 days.

Well, that is nice for you, but I have flown to Europe one way, twice. Always get an isle seat, have traveled to Arab countries and Russia, and now I get twenty questions everytime I come home for a visit. I'll be sure to add you and the others who can't think outside of their little situation when I get sent back to Europe someday.... for ever.

8:46 AM  
Blogger Crazy Politico said...

So PT, what is your solution for screening travelers? Or would you rather just take chances (again) and then have more congressional hearings when the "hope no one tries to hit us" plan fails (again).

The left kills me, there is no problem with taking some of my money for the common good, but take some of your time for the same thing, and the world is going to crumble.

9:11 AM  
Blogger Praguetwin said...

I don't believe that you can effectively screen everyone. You pointed out the main flaw in this program in your post and yet you seem to ignore that fatal flaw inherent in this system.

There are no easy answers. What I take issue with is the dubious efficacy of such programs coupled with the obvious downside of restricting honest, law abiding people the right to freely travel. In this case, I am the person that suffers.

Like most such programs, the end result will be thousands of people being denied the priveledge to travel, and the bad guys will find away to slip through the cracks anyway.

Why is that so hard to see?

Meanwhile, the threat that everyone worries the most about remains unscreed: radioactive material. How much would it cost to install gieger counters at the airports? Would it be worth it?

A: not much and yes. But they don't do that, instead they screen based on my seating preference. Morons.

1:20 PM  
Blogger Crazy Politico said...

While geiger counters at airports would be nice, it's still passenger carrying the stuff that provides intelligence and links to others that you want to catch.

How, btw, are you "suffering" from the screening? A small fraction of your time? The inconvenience of answering a few questions? My bet is you spend more time reading and posting comments on blogs than you do being screened and questioned at airports.

3:14 PM  
Blogger Praguetwin said...

Why not just screen for the radioactive material and then you got the guy AND the material all at once. BINGO!!! Then you can question the guy with the stuff.

So far I haven't been overly inconvinienced. My point is that law abiding citizens like myself should not be denied travel privledges. When and if that happens, I'll let you know.

4:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home