You have all probably read about the famous psychological experiments
where normal everyday people are put in charge of some "prisoners"
(who are also normal everyday people) in an isolated environment with
no control, no deterrents and no consequences for abuse. Sooner or later
the "guards" will start abusing the "prisoners", starting with little
things and slowly escalating to amazing proportions, even though these
are, as said, just normal everyday people who would never do these things
normally.

It seems to me that the TSA in the United States is a perfect example
of exactly this in real life. The more I read about the extreme cases,
the clearer this becomes. For example:

http://tsanewsblog.com/2572/news/yet-another-child-abused-by-tsa/

I'm pretty certain that a normal person would normally not shout
"put your hands over your head! Hands over your head NOW!" to a small
5-years-old child who she has never even seen before. However, when
put in a position of power for a long time, with no deterrents and no
punishment for crude behavior, and with peer pressure, ie. when put into
the proper environment, even the nicest people can become outright
abusive, not to talk about a person who probably was already asocial to
begin with...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26/12/13 21:12, Warp wrote:
> You have all probably read about the famous psychological experiments
> where normal everyday people are put in charge of some "prisoners"
> (who are also normal everyday people) in an isolated environment with
> no control, no deterrents and no consequences for abuse. Sooner or later
> the "guards" will start abusing the "prisoners", starting with little
> things and slowly escalating to amazing proportions, even though these
> are, as said, just normal everyday people who would never do these things
> normally.
> 

I'm guessing that you mean the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) rather
than the Milgram Experiment.

> It seems to me that the TSA in the United States is a perfect example
> of exactly this in real life. The more I read about the extreme cases,
> the clearer this becomes. For example:
> 
> http://tsanewsblog.com/2572/news/yet-another-child-abused-by-tsa/
> 

Whilst I agree completely with your your viewpoint can I point out that
the real problem IMHO is that there appears to be no deterrent to the
TSA agents actions. This was exactly the case in the SPE and it could be
argued that Professor Zimbardo was actually encouraging the 'guards' in
their behaviour.
The lack of coverage by the mainstream media of this may be contributing
to the US government's lack of action. If you google 'tsa abuse' (in the
UK) the first mainstream hit you get is an article in the Daily Mail
from 2010 and that is slanted towards the agents' point of view. A few
headlines in the influential papers and/or on CNN et al would go a long
way towards civilising the agents' behaviour.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 28/12/13 08:19, Doctor John wrote:
> The lack of coverage by the mainstream media of this may be contributing
> to the US government's lack of action. If you google 'tsa abuse' (in the
> UK) the first mainstream hit you get is an article in the Daily Mail
> from 2010 and that is slanted towards the agents' point of view. A few
> headlines in the influential papers and/or on CNN et al would go a long
> way towards civilising the agents' behaviour.
> 
> John
> 

Pressed send before thinking: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 28/12/2013 8:24 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> Pressed send before thinking: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Damn you Moriarty!
I hear that in Boris's voice.
(Banker!)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 08:19:55 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> Whilst I agree completely with your your viewpoint can I point out that
> the real problem IMHO is that there appears to be no deterrent to the
> TSA agents actions.

This is certainly a problem, but another problem (as a fairly seasoned 
post-9/11 air traveler in the US myself) is that while these types of 
events are horrible and should not happen, they are quite an exception, 
too, and may not be indicative of a systematic problem of enforcement, 
but rather show that - as with any hiring process - it's not perfect, and 
the screening that new hires the TSA brings on board may be missing 
things that would filter out people who are prone to this type of 
misbehavior.

Millions of people travel by air in the US every day, and this doesn't 
happen every time, or even close to every time.  It might be interesting 
to see what percentage of travelers actually have problems like this 
going through security checkpoints at US airports.  I'd wager it's 
significantly less than 1%, and probably significantly fewer than 1 in 
100,000.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 28/12/13 21:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> Millions of people travel by air in the US every day, and this doesn't 
> happen every time, or even close to every time.  It might be interesting 
> to see what percentage of travelers actually have problems like this 
> going through security checkpoints at US airports.  I'd wager it's 
> significantly less than 1%, and probably significantly fewer than 1 in 
> 100,000.
> 
> Jim
> 

You are, of course, absolutely correct. However, let's put your estimate
down at the low end - say 1 in 1,000,000. There are approximately 1.5
million passenger flights per day in the US, therefore there may be 550
such incidents every year ... and (realises that there are 150
murders/day in the US) <stops>

Anecdotal evidence is a bitch to deal with. Gimme hard stats.

Still a little bit of training and better selection (not in that order)
wouldn't go amiss.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 22:14:30 +0000, Doctor John wrote:

> On 28/12/13 21:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 
>> Millions of people travel by air in the US every day, and this doesn't
>> happen every time, or even close to every time.  It might be
>> interesting to see what percentage of travelers actually have problems
>> like this going through security checkpoints at US airports.  I'd wager
>> it's significantly less than 1%, and probably significantly fewer than
>> 1 in 100,000.
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> 
> You are, of course, absolutely correct. However, let's put your estimate
> down at the low end - say 1 in 1,000,000. There are approximately 1.5
> million passenger flights per day in the US, therefore there may be 550
> such incidents every year ... and (realises that there are 150
> murders/day in the US) <stops>
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is a bitch to deal with. Gimme hard stats.

That it is - and I agree, hard numbers are much better to deal with.  As 
Darren likes to say, "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'." - and this 
demonstrates why that's the case.

> Still a little bit of training and better selection (not in that order)
> wouldn't go amiss.

Absolutely agreed. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Still a little bit of training and better selection (not in that order)
> wouldn't go amiss.

Or how about doing what every other western country is doing, and not
being such a police state?

I know that public transportation in the US (other than air traffic)
generally sucks, but the way that Americans could do something about
the TSA is to vote with their feet, so-to-speak. The bus or the train
might take a longer time, but at least you are not treated like a
potential criminal and possibly subjected to humiliation and agression.
It might even be cheaper.

Imagine almost empty airports and airplanes... I'm pretty sure things
would change quite rapidly when airlines start going bankrupt one after
another...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 04:48:57 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Doctor John <j.g### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Still a little bit of training and better selection (not in that order)
>> wouldn't go amiss.
> 
> Or how about doing what every other western country is doing, and not
> being such a police state?
> 
> I know that public transportation in the US (other than air traffic)
> generally sucks, but the way that Americans could do something about the
> TSA is to vote with their feet, so-to-speak. The bus or the train might
> take a longer time, but at least you are not treated like a potential
> criminal and possibly subjected to humiliation and agression.
> It might even be cheaper.

You forget that *most* Americans are generally happy with the state of 
things, or at least aren't angry enough to do anything about it.  Many 
feel powerless to effect any change, so why bother?

But again, to call the US a "police state" is really like calling us a 
"socialist state" because we now have affordable health care.  It's 
hyperbole at the best.

I've been in US airports (recently), and I've been in European airports.  
Trust me, security here is not so different compared to some of the 
European airports.  I haven't seen cops inside our terminals carrying 
fully automatic weapons, as I did in Germany and Russia in the late 80's, 
or in the UK (OK, in the UK I don't know if they're *fully* automatic, 
but they weren't just pistols) in the early 2000's.

We have security theater.  It's an inconvenience to many, and there are a 
few high-profile abuses that make the news, but the airports in Europe 
have more actual security than we do at most of ours, and a lot of it is 
much more visible armaments.

> Imagine almost empty airports and airplanes... I'm pretty sure things
> would change quite rapidly when airlines start going bankrupt one after
> another...

That's actually been going on for years - only Southwest (and some of the 
smaller carriers) actually turn a profit.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But again, to call the US a "police state" is really like calling us a 
> "socialist state" because we now have affordable health care.  It's 
> hyperbole at the best.

The TSA all in itself doesn't make the US police-state-like, but it
adds up to everything else.

It seems to be that, at least at some places, there's a strong "us vs them"
mentality among the police force, and they act as if they were a military
force within a foreign and potentially hostile land.

They are extremely trigger-happy and will pull out guns and tasers at
the slightest of provocation, or even without, but just if they feel
like it. They can legally lie to people, and trick people into
implicating themselves. They regularly abuse people with impunity.

Time and again we get news about new cases of police brutality. While
that alone doesn't yet make it a police state, what does is that they
usually get scot-free. Their buddies will support them and lie for them,
even under oath, and their superiors are not eager to start internal
investigations. Such investigations are generally started only if the
event gets wide publicity, and even then the punishments are often
extremely lenient or even non-existent.

The cases that get publicity are probably just the tip of the iceberg.
There just *happened* to be a camera pointing that way, or someone with
a camera who didn't have it immediately confiscated afterward. How many
such cases are happening where there are no cameras and no credible
witnesses? In these cases it's usually the word of the victim vs. the
word of a half-dozen police officers (all of who, naturally, agree that
no abuse happened, of course.)

If the government just watches by while all this is happening, rather
than taking stern actions to eradicate these abuses, what else is that
other than being police-state-like?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:37:45 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> But again, to call the US a "police state" is really like calling us a
>> "socialist state" because we now have affordable health care.  It's
>> hyperbole at the best.
> 
> The TSA all in itself doesn't make the US police-state-like, but it adds
> up to everything else.

Sure, but at the same time, I actually live in the US; you don't.  During 
the lead-up to the 2002 Winter Olympics, Salt Lake City felt like a 
police state - we had armed personnel on high structures around the 
Olympic venues.  We don't have that now.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems, but I'm saying we're far from 
being a police state - and reports that that is the case are pretty 
skewed and show the worst of the worst rather than the status quo.

I will, however, grant that as a white male in the US, I am not subject 
to "stop and frisk," being asked to provide documentation of citizenship, 
etc.  My view certainly isn't the only one here, and I'm sure if you 
asked a black 19-year-old in New York City if it was a police state, they 
might have a different view.

> It seems to be that, at least at some places, there's a strong "us vs
> them"
> mentality among the police force, and they act as if they were a
> military force within a foreign and potentially hostile land.

Again, reports of the worst of the worst - not the norm.  Boston after 
the Boston bombing, for example - way over the top, but not the state of 
affairs in any city on a daily basis.

> They are extremely trigger-happy and will pull out guns and tasers at
> the slightest of provocation, or even without, but just if they feel
> like it. They can legally lie to people, and trick people into
> implicating themselves. They regularly abuse people with impunity.

*Again,* this is the exception that you see in the news.  Cops behaving 
themselves aren't newsworthy.  Cops tasing a grandmother are, so that's 
what you hear about on the news.

> Time and again we get news about new cases of police brutality. While
> that alone doesn't yet make it a police state, what does is that they
> usually get scot-free. Their buddies will support them and lie for them,
> even under oath, and their superiors are not eager to start internal
> investigations. Such investigations are generally started only if the
> event gets wide publicity, and even then the punishments are often
> extremely lenient or even non-existent.

*Again* - the exception and not the rule.  I'm not saying there aren't 
bad actors, but most cops (like most citizens) do their job admirably.  A 
few bad apples give all cops a bad name.

> The cases that get publicity are probably just the tip of the iceberg.
> There just *happened* to be a camera pointing that way, or someone with
> a camera who didn't have it immediately confiscated afterward. How many
> such cases are happening where there are no cameras and no credible
> witnesses? In these cases it's usually the word of the victim vs. the
> word of a half-dozen police officers (all of who, naturally, agree that
> no abuse happened, of course.)
> 
> If the government just watches by while all this is happening, rather
> than taking stern actions to eradicate these abuses, what else is that
> other than being police-state-like?

Your view is skewed because it's based entirely on news media reports and 
not actually being here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I will, however, grant that as a white male in the US, I am not subject 
> to "stop and frisk," being asked to provide documentation of citizenship, 
> etc.

OTOH, you *are* subject to the countrywide surveillance by the NSA
of a scale that even the former Stasi would have been jealous of...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:58:08 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I will, however, grant that as a white male in the US, I am not subject
>> to "stop and frisk," being asked to provide documentation of
>> citizenship,
>> etc.
> 
> OTOH, you *are* subject to the countrywide surveillance by the NSA of a
> scale that even the former Stasi would have been jealous of...

Well, allegedly, I am - but the amount of data in that database is 
staggering, and mining databases of that size isn't a trivial task, even 
with the kind of computing power available to the NSA.  But yes, that 
certainly *is* a valid point.

My larger concern (though certainly the surveillance is problematic) is 
that by casting such a wide net, these agencies will actually learn about 
threats too late.  Allegedly just like 9/11 - the reports say that the 
attack was known about and predicted, and there was advance knowledge for 
it, but the analysis wasn't complete until after the event was done.

You can only scale up computing power so much to mine that amount of data 
- and processing power isn't the limitation, bus speed and storage device 
speed are.  By being less discerning, these agencies (IMHO) make us less 
safe rather than more safe - but they're really good at telling us about 
stuff that's already happened.

But that's really a different topic than the supposed "police state" we 
live in because of abuses by a minority of TSA personnel and cops.  Like 
I said, I live here, you don't.  My experiences are more relevant than 
the tidbits you pick up in the news, which only call out the worst 
exceptions to the rule.  It's not like every cop in the US is walking 
around looking for someone to tase or shoot, which is what it seems your 
impression of life in the US is like.

Most cops are decent, hard-working people just trying to make their part 
of the country a little safer - while not having to take on doing too 
much paperwork.  The same is true for most TSA personnel.

But ho-hum experiences with the vast majority of cops and TSA personnel 
aren't newsworthy, so nobody hears about them.

It's like going to a support forum and then saying "this product sucks" 
based solely on reading about people who have problems, and not taking a 
sample of those who never have a problem at all.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.12.2013 20:58, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I will, however, grant that as a white male in the US, I am not subject
>> to "stop and frisk," being asked to provide documentation of citizenship,
>> etc.
>
> OTOH, you *are* subject to the countrywide surveillance by the NSA
> of a scale that even the former Stasi would have been jealous of...

No, certainly not. They'd be jealous of the technology, but as for scale 
the Stasi surveillance is probably still unsurpassed. After all, they 
had a significant percentage of the entire population as information 
sources.

Oh, and from what I've heard the NSA is far more active outside the USA 
than inside.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:12:05 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Am 30.12.2013 20:58, schrieb Warp:
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> I will, however, grant that as a white male in the US, I am not
>>> subject to "stop and frisk," being asked to provide documentation of
>>> citizenship,
>>> etc.
>>
>> OTOH, you *are* subject to the countrywide surveillance by the NSA of a
>> scale that even the former Stasi would have been jealous of...
> 
> No, certainly not. They'd be jealous of the technology, but as for scale
> the Stasi surveillance is probably still unsurpassed. After all, they
> had a significant percentage of the entire population as information
> sources.
> 
> Oh, and from what I've heard the NSA is far more active outside the USA
> than inside.

What's more, the Stasi actually were locking people up for what they say 
and think.  We're not at that point in the US.  Yet.  I am something of 
an idealist in this regard as well, and think that should the abuses 
actually lead to jailing political opponents, the populace would react 
quite strongly.

So right now, we're at the point of comparing the NSA to the Stasi, and 
that's kinda like saying Christians are actually persecuted in the US.  
No Christian in the US (that I've heard of) has actually experienced 
*real* persecution within the borders of this country.

The Stasi - now there's an organisation that was involved in systematic 
persecution of religious (and other) minorities.

That's the sort of hyperbole I expect from members of the fringes of the 
Tea Party.  Not someone who lives in a country that actually experienced 
the effects of persecution firsthand.  Then again, Finnish Jews were 
reportedly not persecuted, since Finland fought with Germany against the 
USSR, as I understand it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> What's more, the Stasi actually were locking people up for what they say 
> and think.  We're not at that point in the US.  Yet.

Yeah. So far you have to do something really heinous like make a joke in
order to get in jail.

http://www.change.org/petitions/release-my-son-justin-carter-being-prosecuted-for-a-facebook-comment

If that were just a single, isolated incident...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:23:42 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> What's more, the Stasi actually were locking people up for what they
>> say and think.  We're not at that point in the US.  Yet.
> 
> Yeah. So far you have to do something really heinous like make a joke in
> order to get in jail.

Again, the exception, not the rule.  You don't seem to understand that 
one case in 100,000 does not a trend make.

> http://www.change.org/petitions/release-my-son-justin-carter-being-
prosecuted-for-a-facebook-comment
> 
> If that were just a single, isolated incident...

Hmmm, so you know of more?  You see a trend somewhere beyond a few 
isolated incidents?  Do tell.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:45:13 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:23:42 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> What's more, the Stasi actually were locking people up for what they
>>> say and think.  We're not at that point in the US.  Yet.
>> 
>> Yeah. So far you have to do something really heinous like make a joke
>> in order to get in jail.
> 
> Again, the exception, not the rule.  You don't seem to understand that
> one case in 100,000 does not a trend make.
> 
>> http://www.change.org/petitions/release-my-son-justin-carter-being-
> prosecuted-for-a-facebook-comment
>> 
>> If that were just a single, isolated incident...
> 
> Hmmm, so you know of more?  You see a trend somewhere beyond a few
> isolated incidents?  Do tell.

Because yeah, I can see the parallels between a few isolated incidences 
like this and, oh, genocide.  Yeah, they're *so* alike, of course they 
should be compared.

You might just need to get this thing called a "sense of proportion".

Back in the twit filter you go.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Human stupidity never ceases to amaze me; as Einstein said: "2 things 
are infinite, The Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about 
the former...".

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Back in the twit filter you go.

Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible advantage
could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts? I just don't
get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting
"lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you stop seeing
*everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.

One would think that if you are done with a conversation, then the
rational thing to do is that you simply stop participating in that
particular conversation. Censoring everything I write just seems
senseless and childish.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 31.12.2013 10:52, schrieb Warp:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Back in the twit filter you go.
>
> Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible advantage
> could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts? I just don't
> get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting
> "lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you stop seeing
> *everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.

Preventing oneself from getting all upset over someone else's postings 
and from the frustration of knowing that a venting reply won't do any good?

Been there, done that.

Can't see the advantage of making that decision public though.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 22:34:58 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Am 31.12.2013 10:52, schrieb Warp:
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> Back in the twit filter you go.
>>
>> Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible
>> advantage could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts?
>> I just don't get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your
>> ears and shouting "lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you
>> stop seeing *everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.
> 
> Preventing oneself from getting all upset over someone else's postings
> and from the frustration of knowing that a venting reply won't do any
> good?

Bingo.  It's for my blood pressure.  Historically, the things that Warp 
writes in threads like this do nothing but wind me up, because I think is 
arguments are ultimately stupid and pointless.  I've tried a number of 
times to have the debates, and the end result is the same:  My blood 
pressure goes up, I get angry, and nothing is achieved.

Since it happens on a number of topics, there's no point in reading 
anything he writes, because historically what he's written has made me 
angry more often than not because he comes across as completely ignorant 
and unwilling to listen to reason.

> Been there, done that.
> 
> Can't see the advantage of making that decision public though.

I usually don't either, but in Warp's case I make an exception.  By not 
replying, I'm not saying I agree with him.  I'm saying the argument is 
stupid, and if he wants to Godwin the discussion, I don't really care.

But yeah, usually I just walk away from it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 31-12-2013 10:52, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Back in the twit filter you go.
>
> Now this is something that has always puzzled me. What possible advantage
> could you possibly achieve by self-censoring someone's posts? I just don't
> get it. It just feels like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting
> "lalalala I can't hear you!" And as a side-effect you stop seeing
> *everything* I write, even if completely unrelated.

I use the option of automatically mark all your posts as read. (And you 
are the only one btw). So in case you happen to have said something 
relevant I can look back, but in general it is better also for my blood 
pressure. (I am entertaining the option that you may have a financial 
interest in a pharmaceutical that sells blood pressure and anti-stress 
pills. In which case your behaviour would not be stupid and childish but 
merely motivated by money, always the better option).

Anyway I wish you all a good 2014 with reasonable blood pre4ssure levels.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 01:55:23 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I use the option of automatically mark all your posts as read. (And you
> are the only one btw). So in case you happen to have said something
> relevant I can look back, but in general it is better also for my blood
> pressure.

Good to know I'm not alone. ;)

And yes, technically, I don't set my reader up to not see the posts, but 
I score as ignored (but I read with ignored posts visible).  Usually, 
though, anything scored "ignore" is something I actually will just skip 
past without reading anything.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/29/2013 12:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But again, to call the US a "police state" is really like calling us a
> "socialist state" because we now have affordable health care.  It's
> hyperbole at the best.
>

Err. No.. I think the former is a much saner claim than the later, given 
that, as it sits, the "Affordable Health Care" bill that passed based on 
"Letting a lot of corporations sell insurance in places they couldn't 
before, such as across state lines, in competition with each other, 
often by, first, pulling the rug out from under their own customers, by 
cancelling their existing policies."

Calling the US a socialist state based on that idiocy is a bit like 
suggesting that Purple is a shade of Yellow, or that there is a 
functional difference between water and dyhydrogen monoxide. That there 
are actually some idiots in congress, on Faux News, and especially in 
the so called "Tea Party", actually claiming this, isn't all that relevant.

That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as 
much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of 
other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its 
both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to 
plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.

Post a reply to this message

On 1-1-2014 5:54, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Good to know I'm not alone. ;)

I think that should have been a :(


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.01.2014 07:40, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as
> much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of
> other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its
> both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to
> plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.

I do agree that the relationship between citizens and "officers" - be 
they law enforcement, TSA or whatever - in the US seems to be 
fundamentally different from that in Europe, or at least in Germany. 
(Nowadays, that is. It must have been more US-like over here some 
decades ago, probably until around 1970.)

Over here, it is commonly accepted by both citizens and "officers" that 
(1) orders from the latter may be questioned by the former, and (2) the 
former may address the latter like they would any other human being. It 
doesn't seem to be like that in the US.

One thing that would be impossible over here, for instance, would be the 
following dialogue I witnessed myself at an international airport 
between a TSA officer and an old man - the latter isn't quoted verbatim, 
but the former is, word for word:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"The belt has to go off."
"But I tell you it's all plastic."
"The belt has to go off."
"Really, it's all plastic. No metal at all."
"The belt has to go off."
"But I bought it specifically to keep it on when flying."
"The belt has to go off."
"But it's always been ok to keep it on each time I've flown before."
"The belt has to go off."

In the US, it felt natural for the officer to just assert her authority 
over the matter and expect the traveler to comply.

In Germany, it would have felt natural for the dialogue to take a slight 
but important turn:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"It doesn't matter what it's made of. The belt has to go off."

See how the officer would have relied not only on authority, but also on 
a pinch of reason: The order isn't given "just because" - it is given 
because the material of the belt doesn't matter. It also serves to let 
the traveler know that his objections have been heard.

Of course the traveler would probably have continued the dialogue:

"But I bought it specifically to keep it on when flying."
"I'm sorry, but the belt has to go off."

See how the officer would have acknowledged the procedure to be 
inconvenient to the traveler.

"But it's always been ok to keep it on all the time I've flown before."
"You've probably always gone through old-fashioned metal detectors. 
We're using different technology here, and for that the belt has to go off."

See how the officer would again rely on reason.

For the officer to just repeat her order over and over would be 
absolutely unthinkable in Germany. Here, people expect officers to 
acknowledge objections at /some/ level - if only in a "I've heard what 
you said" kind of way.

Post a reply to this message

On 01/01/2014 12:54 PM, clipka wrote:
>
> In Germany, it would have felt natural for the dialogue to take a slight
> but important turn:

I have been doing a lot of flying between London and Brussels, recently.
The dialogue would go like this:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"Well, if you want to risk it setting off the alarm. On you go."

The security in Brussels airport are particularly "human" and treat you 
like a person. The ones in Heathrow are polite but snowed under with the 
number of travellers and tend to be more peremptory.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 10:27:19 +0100, andrel wrote:

> On 1-1-2014 5:54, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Good to know I'm not alone. ;)
> 
> I think that should have been a :(

Perhaps, though it does make me feel a little better about it knowing I'm 
not the only one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Bingo.  It's for my blood pressure.  Historically, the things that Warp 
> writes in threads like this do nothing but wind me up, because I think is 
> arguments are ultimately stupid and pointless.  I've tried a number of 
> times to have the debates, and the end result is the same:  My blood 
> pressure goes up, I get angry, and nothing is achieved.

> Since it happens on a number of topics, there's no point in reading 
> anything he writes, because historically what he's written has made me 
> angry more often than not because he comes across as completely ignorant 
> and unwilling to listen to reason.

You talk like this would be a common thing, yet I can't even remember
the last time you, or anybody else, had such a tantrum.

Then, when someone asks about it, you engage in personal attacks and
belittling comments, and you make it clear that you won't be reading
any possible responses.

Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
attacked or insulted you personally.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as 
> much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of 
> other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its 
> both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to 
> plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.

Before Jim got his tantrum, he kind of missed my point.

It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
because nothing illegal was actually done.

For example, as far as I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong),
but at least in some states it's actually completely legal for police
officers to lie to suspects, and this is regularly abused eg. by traffic
cops to try to make drivers incriminate themselves (often of traffic
violations or other crimes they haven't actually committed.)

Time and again you can read stories about a cop abusing or injuring
someone, or otherwise going well beyond the limits of what the situation
had required, and get no penalty for it. Often it's not even investigated
at all. In the most publicized cases it might get investigated, but even
then no punishment is enacted, or the punishment is really light.

It's not the acts themselves per se, it's the reaction of the government
to them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 11:06 AM, Warp wrote:
> It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
> of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
> it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
> the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
> because nothing illegal was actually done.

I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that 
doesn't make it a Police State.
Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.
As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't 
hear us being called one, often.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:06 AM, Warp wrote:
> > It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
> > of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
> > it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
> > the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
> > because nothing illegal was actually done.

> I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
> You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that 
> doesn't make it a Police State.

"It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
of a police-state-like system."

Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police state,
and the reason was not the *frequency* of the abuse, but the *reaction*
of the government and officials to it.

> Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.

How about people, especially if they are not white, getting regularly
stopped by police simply for walking on the street?

> As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't 
> hear us being called one, often.

"Other countries do it too" doesn't diminish the severity or meaning.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 11:51, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:06 AM, Warp wrote:
>> It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
>> of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
>> it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
>> the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
>> because nothing illegal was actually done.
>
> I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
> You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that
> doesn't make it a Police State.
> Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.
> As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't
> hear us being called one, often.
>

This thread is beginning to bring Pink Floyd's 'Gunner's Dream' to mind:

... where you can speak out loud about your doubts and fears
and, what's more, no-one ever disappears, you never hear their standard 
issue kicking in your door. You can relax on both sides of the tracks 
and maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control and everyone 
has recourse to the law and no-one kills the children anymore.

John

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2014 07:29 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On 02/01/2014 11:06 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
>>> of a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do
>>> it with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because
>>> the authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case,
>>> because nothing illegal was actually done.
>>
>> I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
>> You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that
>> doesn't make it a Police State.
>> Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.
>> As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't
>> hear us being called one, often.
>>
>
> This thread is beginning to bring Pink Floyd's 'Gunner's Dream' to mind:
>
> ... where you can speak out loud about your doubts and fears
> and, what's more, no-one ever disappears, you never hear their standard
> issue kicking in your door. You can relax on both sides of the tracks
> and maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control and everyone
> has recourse to the law and no-one kills the children anymore.
>
> John

OK ... good one, I quit /really/ reading this thread awhile ago (except 
nuggets like these) ... It really ceased being about the original topic 
a long time ago and more like a pissing contest about differing opinions 
... lol yeah I said that!

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2014 12:11 PM, Warp wrote:
> "It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
> of a police-state-like system."
>
> Please read what I wrote.

I did read what you wrote. I was replying to the subtext.

> I said that the US feels*like*  a police state,
> and the reason was not the*frequency*  of the abuse, but the*reaction*
> of the government and officials to it.
>
>> >Lots of 4 am knocks on doors, makes for a Police State.
> How about people, especially if they are not white, getting regularly
> stopped by police simply for walking on the street?
>

That is racism, Police State-ism (;-) )applies to the majority of the 
state. Not just a few ethnic groups.

>> >As for surveillance, Britain probably has the most in Europe and I don't
>> >hear us being called one, often.
> "Other countries do it too" doesn't diminish the severity or meaning.

A sentence can be more than the sum of the words.

Your point is not the point that I was making. Not in the slightest degree.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 05:51:59 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Bingo.  It's for my blood pressure.  Historically, the things that Warp
>> writes in threads like this do nothing but wind me up, because I think
>> is arguments are ultimately stupid and pointless.  I've tried a number
>> of times to have the debates, and the end result is the same:  My blood
>> pressure goes up, I get angry, and nothing is achieved.
> 
>> Since it happens on a number of topics, there's no point in reading
>> anything he writes, because historically what he's written has made me
>> angry more often than not because he comes across as completely
>> ignorant and unwilling to listen to reason.
> 
> You talk like this would be a common thing, yet I can't even remember
> the last time you, or anybody else, had such a tantrum.

Yes, please, do keep using inflammatory language.  It's so *you*.

> Then, when someone asks about it, you engage in personal attacks and
> belittling comments, and you make it clear that you won't be reading any
> possible responses.

You call it a "personal attack".  I call it stating my perception of 
facts.  You won't listen to reason, and instead start comparing the TSA 
to the Stasi, and when I say that's not reasonable, you double down on 
the ignorance and being unreasonable.

> Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
> attacked or insulted you personally.

Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 06:06:06 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as
>> much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of
>> other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its
>> both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to
>> plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.
> 
> Before Jim got his tantrum, he kind of missed my point.

Meh, you think that was a tantrum - it was just me saying "you're 
unreasonable and I'm not going to engage with you any more in this 
discussion because you piss me off because you refuse to listen to what 
I'm saying and resort to hyperbole and being unreasonable, and I don't 
have time for this."

But let's try this again and see if you can understand what I'm saying 
and respond to it in a reasonable manner rather than Godwining the 
discussion.

> It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe of
> a police-state-like system, it's the fact that they mostly can do it
> with impunity. Most of the abuses go unpunished, either because the
> authorities are unwilling to investigate or, in the worst case, because
> nothing illegal was actually done.

Give us some statistics that *prove* that most of the abuses go 
unpunished, Warp.  Because I live here, and I hear about abuses like 
this, but they *do* get punished.  But that's not newsworthy, so it's not 
reported in the media on a wide scale.

For example, here in Salt Lake City, we had a cop who was responsible for 
killing the guy who started shooting up a mall about a mile from where I 
live a few years ago.  Our neighbor was actually there when it happened.

This guy was regarded as a hero, because he stopped this murderer from 
killing more innocent people.

A couple months later, he was arrested for abusing his position as a 
police officer.  He is no longer on the force, and as I recall, he may 
even have ended up serving time for his offense.

> For example, as far as I understand (and please correct me if I'm
> wrong),
> but at least in some states it's actually completely legal for police
> officers to lie to suspects, and this is regularly abused eg. by traffic
> cops to try to make drivers incriminate themselves (often of traffic
> violations or other crimes they haven't actually committed.)

It is legal, but it's not as common as you seem to think.  I've actually 
asked cops (and have cops in my family) about this, and they have told me 
that while they are allowed to mislead a suspect, they rarely have to do 
it.

It's funny that you use traffic stops as an example, because for most 
cops, traffic stops are a nuisance - they have to do paperwork for each 
stop, regardless of whether a ticket is issued or not.  So unless there's 
another reason - or a clear violation of traffic laws - they'd rather not 
stop someone.  For example, on a stretch of I-80 in Nebraska, there's a 
*lot* of drug trafficking that goes on.  After dark, the highway patrol 
pulls people with out of state license plates over for incredibly minor 
infractions (I've been stopped two or three times on that stretch myself 
for things like failing to signal for 150 feet before changing lanes, or 
drifting out of my lane for a moment on a fairly winding section of 
freeway).

The purpose of the stops isn't to cite for the failure to signal long 
enough, but for the cop to get a chance to see if the car smells like 
pot.  Apparently these drug runners are kinda stupid, and are often 
high.  Pulling the motorist over lets them smell the inside of the car 
(when the window opens), and if it smells like weed, then they have 
probable cause for a search.

That's not *lying* per se, it's using the law to its full potential to 
crack down on drug trafficking.  It's apparently very effective.

> Time and again you can read stories about a cop abusing or injuring
> someone, or otherwise going well beyond the limits of what the situation
> had required, and get no penalty for it. Often it's not even
> investigated at all. In the most publicized cases it might get
> investigated, but even then no punishment is enacted, or the punishment
> is really light.
> 
> It's not the acts themselves per se, it's the reaction of the government
> to them.

You seem to think this is a daily or frequent occurrence here.  I'm 
trying to tell you that it's not - it does happen, sure, and it needs to 
be dealt with, but you make it sound like every other cop is doing this, 
and that simply isn't true.  It's a rare occurrence, and it ends up in 
the news *because* it's rare.

Do you now understand?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.01.2014 13:11, schrieb Warp:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>> I think that you go a bit too far saying that America is a Police State.
>> You say that it has a high level of abuse and corruption. But that
>> doesn't make it a Police State.
>
> "It's not the individual actions, or their frequency, that give a vibe
> of a police-state-like system."
>
> Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police state,
> and the reason was not the *frequency* of the abuse, but the *reaction*
> of the government and officials to it.

Maybe there's a disagreement here about the definition of the term 
"police state"?

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:11:40 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police
> state,

You said:

> Or how about doing what every other western country is doing, *and not
> being such a police state?*

Emphasis added.

Try reading what *you* wrote, and maybe you'll understand why you piss 
people off so much.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
> > attacked or insulted you personally.

> Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.

Do you even realize how childish a "no, you are!" comeback is?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:11:40 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police
> > state,

> You said:

> > Or how about doing what every other western country is doing, *and not
> > being such a police state?*

> Emphasis added.

> Try reading what *you* wrote, and maybe you'll understand why you piss 
> people off so much.

Of course take a sentence and ignore all the explanations that came later.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:34:32 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
>> > attacked or insulted you personally.
> 
>> Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.
> 
> Do you even realize how childish a "no, you are!" comeback is?

Probably about as immature as acting the way you do.

And you wonder why I put you in the twit filter. :smh:

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:35:35 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:11:40 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Please read what I wrote. I said that the US feels *like* a police
>> > state,
> 
>> You said:
> 
>> > Or how about doing what every other western country is doing, *and
>> > not being such a police state?*
> 
>> Emphasis added.
> 
>> Try reading what *you* wrote, and maybe you'll understand why you piss
>> people off so much.
> 
> Of course take a sentence and ignore all the explanations that came
> later.

That is the statement that I was reacting to.  You compared the state of 
affairs in US to the Stasi, effectively Godwinning the discussion - you 
clearly don't get your information from actually being here, yet you 
insist that those of us who *live* here are wrong.

So yes, I read what you wrote, and I reacted to it.  And you got all pissy 
about my reaction, and I decided not to play any more, and then you 
started getting personal.

Now, if you *want* to have a reasonable discussion, don't just write 
opinions, listen to what people are saying to you and acknowledge that 
you don't understand the entire picture because you only see what's 
reported in the news, and that's a skewed way to build a picture of 
*anything*.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:37:47 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:34:32 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> > Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
>>> > attacked or insulted you personally.
>> 
>>> Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.
>> 
>> Do you even realize how childish a "no, you are!" comeback is?
> 
> Probably about as immature as acting the way you do.
> 
> And you wonder why I put you in the twit filter. :smh:

And reading that now, I'm absolutely fucking embarrassed that I let you 
drag me down to your level.

You've just re-confirmed to me that you are a toxic personality who 
doesn't deserve an audience, and you're not worth my time.  I'd also 
suggest to the others who are getting wound up by your ignorance that 
you're not worth their time either - but they obviously get to make that 
decision.

Don't bother replying to me - ever again.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 13:37:47 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> > On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 04:34:32 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > 
> >> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >>> > Yes, quite a mature thing to do, especially since I have in no way
> >>> > attacked or insulted you personally.
> >> 
> >>> Oh, yes, just winding people up is *so* mature, Warp.
> >> 
> >> Do you even realize how childish a "no, you are!" comeback is?
> > 
> > Probably about as immature as acting the way you do.
> > 
> > And you wonder why I put you in the twit filter. :smh:

> And reading that now, I'm absolutely fucking embarrassed that I let you 
> drag me down to your level.

Well, it requires a certain kind of mentality to throw "no, you are!"
comebacks.

> Don't bother replying to me - ever again.

Do whatever you want, I'll do whatever I want.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message