Sender: -1.8 (spamval) -- NONE
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;         s=beta; d=gmail.com;         h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;         b=ru2Xj76YIV06mRI0bHuEZxpWpQAI6fMLH9kH+BfMD4+hpHnqgnKL9KPNsX73cLCjXdogxq+exuI3nk/dRlbYKrzj10Gwb+yMHPkk3unm5BuxBTdvYdYAAofkL2kmowBvEqCcTNDWEOPunMhknRUOEDXnklD4a83+oDjSq9lpCcw=
Message-ID: <2ff07e720608141036r3fe1af31pb178e5c0ec5764aa &AElig mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060814165517.45149.qmail &AElig web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;  	boundary="----=_Part_2474_21865075.1155576990070"
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608131415030.30087 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <20060814165517.45149.qmail &AElig web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:36:30 -0400
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: "Clare Dibble" <clare.dibble &AElig gmail.com>
Subject: Re: stupid feel-good "no liquids" rule
Status: O

------=_Part_2474_21865075.1155576990070
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I think it is sort of interesting that the security measures were stepped up
in light of a foiled plot attempt... a sign that current measures were
_effective_.

Additionally, while I think some level of security is appropriate to stop
stupid terrorists (which probably outnumber smart terrorists), it is also
appropriate to question what the right level of trade-off between travel
hassle and safety is.  Whether or not you see the TSA procedures as an
actual civil liberty issue has to do with whether or not flying seems
mandatory to your life.  It is a choice to get on a plane, though many jobs
require it.

My guess from what I know of Danny and Laurie and from their positions is
that Danny flies more often than Laurie and not always by his immediate
choice.  Where Laurie can avoid the draconian security measures except on
"special occasions" for things she wants to do, Danny is frequently
subjected to them for things he "has" to do.  Imagine that we had to go
through TSA screening every day to get into work. Imagine that TSA decided
it would be safer to sedate all passengers and you could only fly by
prescription (a doctor sends you with your "flying pills", which you are
required to take at boarding).  Imagine airlines provided special "flight
outfits" you could order like the classic hospital gown and everything else
had to be checked.  All these things would reduce "terror", but at what
cost?

Aren't we on average a sedated, authority deferring enough society?

I like the behavioral profiling idea.  Instead of general advice to report
suspicious behavior, what if they trained every person who flies to spot the
top 5 most terrorist-like behaviors and updated the list every 6 months?
Why not take the fight against terror into our own hands instead of leaving
it all to "authority"?  Making us more like sheep only makes us more
susceptible to "terror".

Clare

------=_Part_2474_21865075.1155576990070
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

I think it is sort of interesting that the security measures were
stepped up in light of a foiled plot attempt... a sign that current
measures were _effective_.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Additionally, while I think some level of security is appropriate to
stop stupid terrorists (which probably outnumber smart terrorists), it
is also appropriate to question what the right level of trade-off
between travel hassle and safety is.&nbsp; Whether or not you see the
TSA procedures as an actual civil liberty issue has to do with whether
or not flying seems mandatory to your life.&nbsp; It is a choice to get
on a plane, though many jobs require it.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
My guess from what I know of Danny and Laurie and from their positions
is that Danny flies more often than Laurie and not always by his
immediate choice.&nbsp; Where Laurie can avoid the draconian security
measures except on &quot;special occasions&quot; for things she wants to do,
Danny is frequently subjected to them for things he &quot;has&quot; to do.&nbsp;
Imagine that we had to go through TSA screening every day to get into
work. Imagine that TSA decided it would be safer to sedate all
passengers and you could only fly by prescription (a doctor sends you
with your &quot;flying pills&quot;, which you are required to take at
boarding).&nbsp; Imagine airlines provided special &quot;flight outfits&quot; you
could order like the classic hospital gown and everything else had to
be checked.&nbsp; All these things would reduce &quot;terror&quot;, but at what
cost?&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Aren't we on average a sedated, authority deferring enough society?&nbsp;   <br>
<br>
I like the behavioral profiling idea.&nbsp; Instead of general advice
to report suspicious behavior, what if they trained every person who
flies to spot the top 5 most terrorist-like behaviors and updated the
list every 6 months?&nbsp; Why not take the fight against terror into
our own hands instead of leaving it all to &quot;authority&quot;?&nbsp; Making us
more like sheep only makes us more susceptible to &quot;terror&quot;.<br>
<br>
Clare<br>
<br>

------=_Part_2474_21865075.1155576990070--