M
Matt²
Are new security screenings affecting your decision to fly? | Analysis & Opinion |
Take dis poll. Do eet... DO EET NAAOOOWW!!
Take dis poll. Do eet... DO EET NAAOOOWW!!
- Status
M
Mountebank
The scans aren't too bad - although they could do with adapting their procedures to later developments. Instead they just add on checks layer after layer.
However, the customs and immigration people... are generally dicks. In other airports around the world they range from business-like to light-hearted but competent. The American equivalents tend to be miserable, impatient and vindictive. I don't know if they're paid peanuts, or if their uniforms are really itchy or what, but when a small child smiles and waves at you, the proper response isn't to tell the parent to "get that damn child under control" (Denver airport). And if an old man with a walking stick is having difficulty taking his shoes off for them to be x-rayed, maybe get him a chair and help rather than tell him "if you can't take your shoes off in good time, you need to take your belongings and go somewhere to prepare" and thrust the tray of his stuff at him.
Admittedly they were slightly better the last time I went. I was delayed by them being extremely confused due to me planning to get married in the USA but not stay there afterwards, but they were at least courteous as they worked out I was coming in legally and correctly, even apologising for delaying me 10 minutes (a great improvement from when they kept me for 4 hours and caused me to miss my flight, stranding me in Chicago for a night - just because I share name with an escaped Texan convict. They had my fingerprints from a previous visit, and they admitted the escapee wasn't even the same ethnicity as me, but still made it perfectly clear that it was my fault for having that name). At some of the US airports on my last visit, some of them even smiled.
However, the customs and immigration people... are generally dicks. In other airports around the world they range from business-like to light-hearted but competent. The American equivalents tend to be miserable, impatient and vindictive. I don't know if they're paid peanuts, or if their uniforms are really itchy or what, but when a small child smiles and waves at you, the proper response isn't to tell the parent to "get that damn child under control" (Denver airport). And if an old man with a walking stick is having difficulty taking his shoes off for them to be x-rayed, maybe get him a chair and help rather than tell him "if you can't take your shoes off in good time, you need to take your belongings and go somewhere to prepare" and thrust the tray of his stuff at him.
Admittedly they were slightly better the last time I went. I was delayed by them being extremely confused due to me planning to get married in the USA but not stay there afterwards, but they were at least courteous as they worked out I was coming in legally and correctly, even apologising for delaying me 10 minutes (a great improvement from when they kept me for 4 hours and caused me to miss my flight, stranding me in Chicago for a night - just because I share name with an escaped Texan convict. They had my fingerprints from a previous visit, and they admitted the escapee wasn't even the same ethnicity as me, but still made it perfectly clear that it was my fault for having that name). At some of the US airports on my last visit, some of them even smiled.
As a wise man said upon dealing with airport security, "Well it appears the terrorists have already won."
I don't really know much about the scanners and I'm not one to jump on the OMG ITS GONNA GIVE US CANCER wagon but I have heard enough that it sounds like there might actually be some danger. All in all I'm not a fan of cancer or groin grabs by overly assertive TSA agents.
I don't really know much about the scanners and I'm not one to jump on the OMG ITS GONNA GIVE US CANCER wagon but I have heard enough that it sounds like there might actually be some danger. All in all I'm not a fan of cancer or groin grabs by overly assertive TSA agents.
E
Element 117
you do know you are discredited by living in the country that wrote and then disregarded 1984, right?
you do know you are discredited by living in the country that wrote and then disregarded 1984, right?[/QUOTE]
That's a catch-22 argument. If anything, they would be more likely to have the surveillance he was describing simply because he wouldn't have written about it if he hadn't worried about it, and he wouldn't have worried about it if it wasn't a possible outcome.
Relevant:
George Orwell, Big Brother is watching your house
---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------
It's not a surprise at all. Of course they'd be less likely - but not much less likely. If they could save $10 and go through the more intrusive screening, I bet a lot of people would take the discount. It's not a dealbreaker for most people, but it is certainly something to take into account.
C
Chibibar
o/~ you want to touch me... I can't no.. satisfaction o/~
When I went to China (one of the more restrictive country) I didn't feel as intrusive at their airport than the U.S.
When I went to China (one of the more restrictive country) I didn't feel as intrusive at their airport than the U.S.
M
Mountebank
Not really, I've seen behind the curtain. Surveillance cameras outside don't bother me. And if you think that surveillance cameras on the streets = 1984, then you really didn't understand the book.
E
Element 117
Not really, I've seen behind the curtain. Surveillance cameras outside don't bother me. And if you think that surveillance cameras on the streets = 1984, then you really didn't understand the book.[/QUOTE]
Nice leaps there, but no, I'm basiing my information on monthly, lengthy discussions with a friend who lives outside London, regarding things like the The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and The Criminal Justice Act 2003 among others, but we'll just pretend that I only think 1984 and the UK was about surveillance cameras, zomb.
M
Mountebank
Congratulations on beyond going for the typical blinkered comparisons; but I can tell you from a life lived on Airstrip One that seeing the legislation in action is very different from theorising on it. The Daily Mail headline approach to politics is rightly mocked, as common sense is generally used as the filter to prevent abuse of legislation. Although I was glad to see the end of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. That was always too much of a clumsy tool.
But you know what? That being said, I don't do this anymore. I had enough of arguing on the internet a while ago. Too many eternal circular arguments, selective quotes, deliberate misunderstandings, bizarre black & white situations, logic so fuzzy that Robin Williams thinks it could do with a shave, claiming opinions as facts and dismissing facts as irrelevant in the face of personal belief. This is no reflection on you E117, I don't recall your debate tactics or even your general political beliefs (if you are who I'm guessing you are from your avatar - if not, I have no idea who you are). I get conflict & debate aplenty in the real world, from trafficked slaves to politicians and international weapons dealers (guess who was more polite). I keep the internet for chat on movies, games and the lighter side of life in general. I just don't want to spend the time going around in circles anymore. It's sometimes interesting to read, but in general: I'm out.
- Status