3 ms·

?! Not exactly sure why I was down-voted... This was a sincere question. Did I miss something obvious?

• yalurker 17y ago
  Your post is self-contradictory and illogical. You say to forget about privacy, then acknowledge that some privacy is important, then suggest that privacy invasions don't matter as long as they happen to a lot of people. Most of us recognize we're more likely to get hit by lightning while winning the lottery than be saved by one of these machines, and as such oppose their use.
  • jpatte 17y ago
    Maybe "the hell with privacy" was too strong. I reacted this way because my feeling is privacy is often an over-used excuse not to comply to a security measure. And actually my point was not that these invasions should happen to a lot of people, but that they are fine as long as the collected information are immediately disposed and have no consequence in the future.
  • rick888 17y ago
    "Most of us recognize we're more likely to get hit by lightning while winning the lottery than be saved by one of these machines, and as such oppose their use." Do you actually know how many attacks these machines will prevent? You don't seem to have any facts to back up your statements. In addition to this, the fact that people know that these machines are in place will prevent some future attempts.
    • ErrantX 17y ago
      > Do you actually know how many attacks these machines will prevent? Consider firstly the number of attacks caught per year. The number of flights per year. And the number of uncaught attacks per year. I guess in the last year they might have caught one attack (the Xmas day one). In which case think the statement you are replying to is a fair one.
      • rick888 17y ago
        "Consider firstly the number of attacks caught per year. The number of flights per year. And the number of uncaught attacks per year." My issue isn't with the low percentage of attacks. It's the consequence of an attack, which is that innocent people die. Not to mention the fact that there might be less attacks because we are so protected.
        • ErrantX 17y ago
          That doesnt make a lot of sense. > It's the consequence of an attack, which is that innocent people die. But, they dont. Not all that often anyway. More innocent people die due to careless drivers; why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face) > Not to mention the fact that there might be less attacks because we are so protected There are, generally, no attacks anyway. As always in these discussions I recommend reading "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear" which addresses this much better than I can. :)
          • rick888 17y ago
            "More innocent people die due to careless drivers" You can't force every driver to be more careful. I think the only way to fix these types of things would be to have really harsh jail sentences, so people think very carefully before they act. But, I would not want to live in a society like this. "why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)" If we can prevent innocent people from dying, why not have extra security in place? For the average person, it's just a minor inconvenience. Airport security is much easier to maintain because it is more of a controlled environment. "But, they dont. Not all that often anyway. More innocent people die due to careless drivers; why should be concentrate on terrorism (which is one of the minimal risks we face)" Like I said, if we don't concentrate on these things, we may have even more attacks because criminals/terrorists will know that they can get through security fairly easily. Many plots most likely never happen because of the difficulty of trying to get through security checkpoints. "There are, generally, no attacks anyway." Because we have tough security policies in place. Before 9/11, US airport security was lacking and terrorists were able to take advantage of it.
• Esspe 17y ago
  Almost nobody likes Big Brother (even if it supposedly doing something for our own good).