RLCs Can Be a Good Thing

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> For someone who is always so concerned and aware about privacy issues,
> you're in some pretty serious denial. You were all up in arms in
> paranoia about my hypothetical idea for gathering traffic congestion
> info directly from cars; why are you so blase about a system that
> already exists?

You are being an asswipe trying to play the 'paranoia' card. I could see
it for what it was. You start playing stupid games, don't complain about
it later on. Grow a clue.

Of course there is an issue with airline travel. The desire is to have
all travel tracked. And you're one of the masses who gleefully trades
liberty for the illusion of security.

There is only one thing keeping air travel safe right now. The fact that
all the other passengers will beat the snot out of anyone who even
remotely appears like they are going to be doing something out of line on
a flight.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:40:14 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> For someone who is always so concerned and aware about privacy issues,
>> you're in some pretty serious denial. You were all up in arms in
>> paranoia about my hypothetical idea for gathering traffic congestion
>> info directly from cars; why are you so blase about a system that
>> already exists?
>
>You are being an asswipe trying to play the 'paranoia' card. I could see
>it for what it was. You start playing stupid games, don't complain about
>it later on. Grow a clue.
>
>Of course there is an issue with airline travel. The desire is to have
>all travel tracked. And you're one of the masses who gleefully trades
>liberty for the illusion of security.
>
>There is only one thing keeping air travel safe right now. The fact that
>all the other passengers will beat the snot out of anyone who even
>remotely appears like they are going to be doing something out of line on
>a flight.

Really? What did the people do last year when several middle-eastern
musicians stood up right before landing?

In article >, Cartlon Shew wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:40:14 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>> For someone who is always so concerned and aware about privacy issues,
>>> you're in some pretty serious denial. You were all up in arms in
>>> paranoia about my hypothetical idea for gathering traffic congestion
>>> info directly from cars; why are you so blase about a system that
>>> already exists?
>>
>>You are being an asswipe trying to play the 'paranoia' card. I could see
>>it for what it was. You start playing stupid games, don't complain about
>>it later on. Grow a clue.
>>
>>Of course there is an issue with airline travel. The desire is to have
>>all travel tracked. And you're one of the masses who gleefully trades
>>liberty for the illusion of security.
>>
>>There is only one thing keeping air travel safe right now. The fact that
>>all the other passengers will beat the snot out of anyone who even
>>remotely appears like they are going to be doing something out of line on
>>a flight.

> Really?

Yes. The security is an illusion. Countless items more dangerous than a
box cutter can get through while they are taking away people's toe nail
clippers.

> What did the people do last year when several middle-eastern
> musicians stood up right before landing?

You'll have to reference a news article.

In article >,
says...
>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:08:51 -0600,
>(Brent P) wrote:
>>> Ever been in an airport? The facial recognition camera system was
>>> first deployed there - to look for terrorists, of course. But since
>>> you have to flash your photo ID to fly, they now know the name and
>>> address that goes with your face. With that info, they can get your
>>> credit report, and from there the sky's the limit.
>>Um the minimum wage employee that glanced at my DL would be lucky to
>>remember the details 5 minutes later.
>He doesn't have to.
>Correlate the picture taken by the camera behind the counter with the
>check-in time, and BINGO: we have BrentP's face and real name and
>address properly correlated.
>>Oh, btw, my DL has an address on it
>>that is over 8 years old, was 3-4 moves ago.
>
>Tsk tsk - last I heard, the Secretary of State requires you to notify
>him of any change of address within 10 days. But that doesn't even
>matter.

Who's checking? How are they to know?

>The credit card you used to book your flight has your current
>address (it must, or you'd never get your bills). BOOM: you're nailed.

You can pay your CC bill, and look up your statement, on-line. So your
address does not need to be valid. You only need to check when they plan
to mail your new card.

>>> Big Brother is watching you, Brent.
>>
>>Doesn't mean we have to want it like you do.
>
>Just as long as you realize it.

True, you don't have to make it easy for them.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:54:20 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Cartlon Shew wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:40:14 -0600,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>>
>>>> For someone who is always so concerned and aware about privacy issues,
>>>> you're in some pretty serious denial. You were all up in arms in
>>>> paranoia about my hypothetical idea for gathering traffic congestion
>>>> info directly from cars; why are you so blase about a system that
>>>> already exists?
>>>
>>>You are being an asswipe trying to play the 'paranoia' card. I could see
>>>it for what it was. You start playing stupid games, don't complain about
>>>it later on. Grow a clue.
>>>
>>>Of course there is an issue with airline travel. The desire is to have
>>>all travel tracked. And you're one of the masses who gleefully trades
>>>liberty for the illusion of security.
>>>
>>>There is only one thing keeping air travel safe right now. The fact that
>>>all the other passengers will beat the snot out of anyone who even
>>>remotely appears like they are going to be doing something out of line on
>>>a flight.
>
>> Really?
>
>Yes. The security is an illusion. Countless items more dangerous than a
>box cutter can get through while they are taking away people's toe nail
>clippers.
>
>> What did the people do last year when several middle-eastern
>> musicians stood up right before landing?
>
>You'll have to reference a news article.
>

And of course since this happened a year or so ago, I should have one
at my fingertips.

Well, I suppose with Google, I do.

I can't vouch for this site, but the paragraphs below taken from that
site describe what I read last year:

http://www.rense.com/general54/ARAB.HTM

It sounds like she spiced it up a little, but there were in fact Arab
musicians on the plane - and you know how weird musicians can be.

In article >, Cartlon Shew wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:54:20 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Cartlon Shew wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:40:14 -0600,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For someone who is always so concerned and aware about privacy issues,
>>>>> you're in some pretty serious denial. You were all up in arms in
>>>>> paranoia about my hypothetical idea for gathering traffic congestion
>>>>> info directly from cars; why are you so blase about a system that
>>>>> already exists?
>>>>
>>>>You are being an asswipe trying to play the 'paranoia' card. I could see
>>>>it for what it was. You start playing stupid games, don't complain about
>>>>it later on. Grow a clue.
>>>>
>>>>Of course there is an issue with airline travel. The desire is to have
>>>>all travel tracked. And you're one of the masses who gleefully trades
>>>>liberty for the illusion of security.
>>>>
>>>>There is only one thing keeping air travel safe right now. The fact that
>>>>all the other passengers will beat the snot out of anyone who even
>>>>remotely appears like they are going to be doing something out of line on
>>>>a flight.
>>
>>> Really?
>>
>>Yes. The security is an illusion. Countless items more dangerous than a
>>box cutter can get through while they are taking away people's toe nail
>>clippers.
>>
>>> What did the people do last year when several middle-eastern
>>> musicians stood up right before landing?
>>
>>You'll have to reference a news article.

> And of course since this happened a year or so ago, I should have one
> at my fingertips.

I suppose I am just supposed to have seen, read and remembered every news
story of the past year so I would know immediately what you are
referencing?

> Well, I suppose with Google, I do.

It's your job to find the cites you're making.

> I can't vouch for this site, but the paragraphs below taken from that
> site describe what I read last year:
>
> http://www.rense.com/general54/ARAB.HTM
>
> It sounds like she spiced it up a little, but there were in fact Arab
> musicians on the plane - and you know how weird musicians can be.

And your point is?

Let me put it this way, if you can't figure out how to get a weapon
better than a box cutter past current security check points, you wouldn't
even make it a day back in the stone age