| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/23/2008 09:24:57 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
06/23/2008 10:15:41 AM · #2 |
I get so tired of seeing this crap. Any department that advises bothering photographers is run by stupid people. Do these people actually think a terrorist group will use a large honking camera to take preparatory images????? Any camera, or any images at all??
Plus, how many terrorist attacks have happened since 9/11 in the US, or the UK, for that matter? Simple reinforcement of cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11. There were experts aware of this flaw for 30 years before it was exploited. But because of the stupidity of the people in charge of the airlines and FAA we get to lose a bunch of our rights. Rich suppliers of the Military Industrial Complex get to make billions because of a war in Iraq with no justification. Ahhhhhhh, got that off me chest. Sorry for the rant. |
|
|
|
06/23/2008 12:26:09 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I get so tired of seeing this crap. Any department that advises bothering photographers is run by stupid people. Do these people actually think a terrorist group will use a large honking camera to take preparatory images????? Any camera, or any images at all??
Plus, how many terrorist attacks have happened since 9/11 in the US, or the UK, for that matter? Simple reinforcement of cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11. There were experts aware of this flaw for 30 years before it was exploited. But because of the stupidity of the people in charge of the airlines and FAA we get to lose a bunch of our rights. Rich suppliers of the Military Industrial Complex get to make billions because of a war in Iraq with no justification. Ahhhhhhh, got that off me chest. Sorry for the rant. |
so, fir3bird, how do you really feel? don't hold back, okay? :) :) :) ;) |
|
|
|
06/23/2008 02:14:23 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I get so tired of seeing this crap. Any department that advises bothering photographers is run by stupid people. Do these people actually think a terrorist group will use a large honking camera to take preparatory images????? Any camera, or any images at all??
Plus, how many terrorist attacks have happened since 9/11 |
This one
Originally posted by fir3bird:
in the US, or the UK, for that matter? Simple reinforcement of cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11. There were experts aware of this flaw for 30 years before it was exploited. But because of the stupidity of the people in charge of the airlines and FAA we get to lose a bunch of our rights. Rich suppliers of the Military Industrial Complex get to make billions because of a war in Iraq with no justification. Ahhhhhhh, got that off me chest. Sorry for the rant. |
Other than that I pretty much agree with your statement. So many of the policies (and \"acts\") have been born out of paranoia, and a complete lack of understanding- not that I could step in and become an expert on Islamic Militants overnight. What is truly sad is that so many died on, and since, 9/11, but all it has become is a political tool. And that is just wrong. For quite sometime I have had a rather pessimistic view that on 9/12/2001 political power brokers (from both sides) around the nation sat down with their various aides and began coming up with their \"game plan\" for the next two or three election cycles, and coining phrases like \"Post 9/11 world,\" in the process. Just doing my part to get this moved to the rant section :)
|
|
|
|
06/23/2008 02:46:52 PM · #5 |
Yes, prevention need not take the form of limiting civil liberties. The most haunting thing that ever happened to me is the the memory of flying in to Ronald Regan Nat'l Airport in Jan., 2001. I commented to my friends that it seemed like it would be too easy for someone to take one of these jets and bank it into the capitol building and it struck me as odd that the cockpit door wasn't even closed, let alone locked. So, I went and asked a capitol security guard how they would handle a kamikaze jet during a state of the union speech. He gave me some BS about them having guns on the roof that would take out such an attempt.
When I heard the Bush admin suggest no one could have predicted such an attack, I couldn't stop yelling at the TV for a few minutes I was so angry, and yes, experts knew this was a HUGE security hole long before 9/11 happened. And what a simple fix it would have been to reinforce those doors, or even just require pilots to lock their doors during flight. Aarrrggghh.
So, because they didn't take the non-intrusive preventative measures back then, now they feel the need to harass photographers?!? That makes sense :-/
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I get so tired of seeing this crap. Any department that advises bothering photographers is run by stupid people. Do these people actually think a terrorist group will use a large honking camera to take preparatory images????? Any camera, or any images at all??
Plus, how many terrorist attacks have happened since 9/11 in the US, or the UK, for that matter? Simple reinforcement of cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11. There were experts aware of this flaw for 30 years before it was exploited. But because of the stupidity of the people in charge of the airlines and FAA we get to lose a bunch of our rights. Rich suppliers of the Military Industrial Complex get to make billions because of a war in Iraq with no justification. Ahhhhhhh, got that off me chest. Sorry for the rant. |
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 08:55:24 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 10:10:13 AM · #7 |
I am convinced that the vast majority of 'security' measures enacted since 9/11 have absolutely nothing to do with security. Rather, just the perception of security. The more they bother people, the safer they feel.
Take for example the liquid ban on airlines. Honestly, how hard would it be to fill a few Nalgene flasks with whatever liquid they need, tape it to your thigh, and bring it right on board. My point is that if they want to bring liquid on board, they can, regardless of any ridiculous liquid ban. The ban only serves to inconvenience passages while giving them a false sense of security. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:33:58 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
I am convinced that the vast majority of 'security' measures enacted since 9/11 have absolutely nothing to do with security. Rather, just the perception of security. The more they bother people, the safer they feel.
Take for example the liquid ban on airlines. Honestly, how hard would it be to fill a few Nalgene flasks with whatever liquid they need, tape it to your thigh, and bring it right on board. My point is that if they want to bring liquid on board, they can, regardless of any ridiculous liquid ban. The ban only serves to inconvenience passages while giving them a false sense of security. |
Well now you've done it. As soon as they see this thread we are all going to be subject to strip searches every time we get on. Either that or our pants are going to have to go on the X-ray machine like our shoes.
I'm just waiting for the day the terrorists come up with explosive underwear. I think I'm pretty well going to stop flying at that point...
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 12:08:19 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well now you've done it. As soon as they see this thread we are all going to be subject to strip searches every time we get on. |
Don't be silly. They'll just label all non-ferrous containers as terror enabling devices and ban their manufacturing, sale, trade, and possession. |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 01:45:43 PM · #10 |
| They've already got the xray machines that see through clothes. There was a thread on it a week or so ago, but I'm not inclined to look for it right now. :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 06:26:14 PM EDT.
