You say Police State, I say potato. Either way let's discuss surveillance and government overreach.

Ego Man wrote:

If you thought that the TSA was intrusive before....

If the TSA's full body scanners make you nervous," says Marc Georges at Mashable, "the Department of Homeland Security's new molecular scanner may have you locking yourself at home and ordering in for the rest of your life." The government has teamed up with a subcontractor to produce a new laser scanner that can detect "traces of drugs or gun powder on your clothes," says Gizmodo, as well as the egg sandwich you had for breakfast and the adrenaline level in your body — all "without you knowing it." The new scanner is reportedly slated for use in airports and border crossings, but could have other applications as well. Here, a guide to this high-powered addition to the government's security arsenal:

From here

even more

The new scanner "fires a laser to provide molecular-level feedback" from your body, says Gizmodo. The results show up almost instantly on an attached computer screen, which can identify the most granular details, "even certain chemical changes in plant life," says Georges. The laser has a range of 164 feet, which means passengers could be scanned without even knowing it — "say while waiting to check in" to a flight, says John Roach at MSNBC.com.

well, i guess surrendering my freedom and privacy is going to be even easier and more efficient.

As someone who has worked in that field (bomb, chemical weapons and narcotics detection at airports), just because they can detect down to molecular levels in the lab, does not mean that they will be able to use that in the airport. There are so many things that will give false positives* that they would have to use it at a low enough sensitivity that it is essentially worthless.

*Many vintage mens colognes with high amounts of musk, as well as shoe shine, at high enough concentrations, will set off most airport scanners as false positives for high amounts of chemical weapons and explosives. And by high I mean, a couple of puffs of cologne in your bag, or a fresh tin of shoe shine that was left open.

mudbunny wrote:

As someone who has worked in that field (bomb, chemical weapons and narcotics detection at airports), just because they can detect down to molecular levels in the lab, does not mean that they will be able to use that in the airport. There are so many things that will give false positives* that they would have to use it at a low enough sensitivity that it is essentially worthless.

*Many vintage mens colognes with high amounts of musk, as well as shoe shine, at high enough concentrations, will set off most airport scanners as false positives for high amounts of chemical weapons and explosives. And by high I mean, a couple of puffs of cologne in your bag, or a fresh tin of shoe shine that was left open.

If they approach this in the typical TSA manner, they'll just ban cologne and shined shoes instead of admitting that it can give false positives.

Stengah wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

As someone who has worked in that field (bomb, chemical weapons and narcotics detection at airports), just because they can detect down to molecular levels in the lab, does not mean that they will be able to use that in the airport. There are so many things that will give false positives* that they would have to use it at a low enough sensitivity that it is essentially worthless.

*Many vintage mens colognes with high amounts of musk, as well as shoe shine, at high enough concentrations, will set off most airport scanners as false positives for high amounts of chemical weapons and explosives. And by high I mean, a couple of puffs of cologne in your bag, or a fresh tin of shoe shine that was left open.

If they approach this in the typical TSA manner, they'll just ban cologne and shined shoes instead of admitting that it can give false positives.

They could try that, but all of the TSA execs who like to wear the fancy cologne and get their shoes shined at the airport would probably make a fuss about not being able to look good for the reporters and senators.

mudbunny wrote:
Stengah wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

As someone who has worked in that field (bomb, chemical weapons and narcotics detection at airports), just because they can detect down to molecular levels in the lab, does not mean that they will be able to use that in the airport. There are so many things that will give false positives* that they would have to use it at a low enough sensitivity that it is essentially worthless.

*Many vintage mens colognes with high amounts of musk, as well as shoe shine, at high enough concentrations, will set off most airport scanners as false positives for high amounts of chemical weapons and explosives. And by high I mean, a couple of puffs of cologne in your bag, or a fresh tin of shoe shine that was left open.

If they approach this in the typical TSA manner, they'll just ban cologne and shined shoes instead of admitting that it can give false positives.

They could try that, but all of the TSA execs who like to wear the fancy cologne and get their shoes shined at the airport would probably make a fuss about not being able to look good for the reporters and senators.

They are better than us and don't have to go through security.

I look forward to this device being used on someone without their prior knowledge and consent, leading to a ruling regarding whether it counts as an "Unreasonable Search". I think the answer would undoubtedly be "yes".

Nevermind that these devices are nothing more than handouts to the companies who make them.

DSGamer wrote:

Nevermind that these devices are nothing more than handouts to the companies who make them.

Exactly.

And another reason why Voter ID laws are pointless. They'll be completely obsoleted by this technology once it's in place.

And then, like with computerized voting systems with no accountability, we'll see the *real* fraud brought in as the companies that do this promise to deliver states for the candidates they favor. Diebold, we salute you, you forward-thinking innovators! :-/

I thought this a fairly appropriate thread to post in.

NYPD spying operation uncovered

Probably posted elsewhere, seemed relevant for this thread.

So this is a fun headline: NSA whistleblowers: Government spying on every single American. Which isn't exactly what they said, but anyway, I'm not particularly happy with these developments, especially that it's the barely-regulated NSA collecting this. Here, I dug up the full interview from which these quotes are taken:

I'm returning from a P&C hiatus. Miss me?

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

93_confirmed wrote:

I'm returning from a P&C hiatus. Miss me?

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

That seems to me more like they are trying to be a civilized country in the 21st century more than it seems like a police state action.

But obviously, I just don't get it:)

93_confirmed wrote:

I'm returning from a P&C hiatus. Miss me?

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

Wait a sec ... not one mention of Ron Paul in this post. You're not quite back in the swing of things are ya?

SallyNasty wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

I'm returning from a P&C hiatus. Miss me?

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

That seems to me more like they are trying to be a civilized country in the 21st century more than it seems like a police state action.

But obviously, I just don't get it:)

That was my exact thought. The necessity of law might be worth a debate, but I see absolutely nothing about this is relevant to making the US a police state.

Otherwise, we've been a police state ever since citizens have not been allowed to drive tanks and possess nuclear weapons.

Wait. I can't drive my tank? Oh crap!

I actually found the video in the article to be refreshingly sensible.

Also, this bill has no chance of passing. It's hard to see the police state angle when there will be no change in the law at the end of the process.

Further restriction of freedom = closer to a police state.

Funkenpants wrote:

Also, this bill has no chance of passing. It's hard to see the police state angle when there will be no change in the law at the end of the process.

And the reason the law won't pass is that voter reaction would be negative. So really, this is a good example of why we don't live in a police state.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Further restriction of freedom = closer to a police state.

Even if the bill passed, how much does anyone's life change if they can have only a ten-round magazine instead of one containing 30 or 100 rounds?

LeapingGnome wrote:

Further restriction of freedom = closer to a police state.

Yes, in the same way that relaxing a law = closer to total anarchy or standing on a chair = closer to being in orbit.

Funkenpants wrote:

Even if the bill passed, how much does anyone's life change if they can have only a ten-round magazine instead of one containing 30 or 100 rounds?

I don't know. Let's ask the families of the people who died in Aurora and the survivors to see if they think smaller magazine sizes might have changed their lives.

Of course, we have to weigh their trivial concerns against the pressing needs of hunters and sport shooters to have 30+ rounds at the ready.

OG_slinger wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

Even if the bill passed, how much does anyone's life change if they can have only a ten-round magazine instead of one containing 30 or 100 rounds?

I don't know. Let's ask the families of the people who died in Aurora and the survivors to see if they think smaller magazine sizes might have changed their lives.

Of course, we have to weigh their trivial concerns against the pressing needs of hunters and sport shooters to have 30+ rounds at the ready.

I think that's the point Funkenpants was making, but I could be wrong.

What am I, chopped liver? No one even responded to me.

My reaction was that we've already discussed that, Minarchist. It's just a little more info from the Fort, not really new stuff unless I missed something.

OG_slinger wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

Even if the bill passed, how much does anyone's life change if they can have only a ten-round magazine instead of one containing 30 or 100 rounds?

I don't know. Let's ask the families of the people who died in Aurora and the survivors to see if they think smaller magazine sizes might have changed their lives.

Of course, we have to weigh their trivial concerns against the pressing needs of hunters and sport shooters to have 30+ rounds at the ready.

"Oh god, that's pandering!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpR-s...

garion333 wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:

I'm returning from a P&C hiatus. Miss me?

Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

Wait a sec ... not one mention of Ron Paul in this post. You're not quite back in the swing of things are ya? :P

I'll save my Paul comments for the Presedential thread. I'm sure there will be quite a bit to talk about once the RNC kicks off next month.

Funkenpants wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

Further restriction of freedom = closer to a police state.

Even if the bill passed, how much does anyone's life change if they can have only a ten-round magazine instead of one containing 30 or 100 rounds?

Exactly what Leaping Gnome said. So it's ok for police and military to have automatic weapons with high capacity magazines but not for law abiding citizens because a handful of people out of 350 million may use them to commit a crime? The government is reducing the armament capability of the entire citizenry and it further infringes on the right to bear arms. If a person wants to commit mass murder they'll find a way to do it regardless of weapon capacity.

93_confirmed wrote:

The government is reducing the armament capability of the entire citizenry and it further infringes on the right to bear arms. If a person wants to commit mass murder they'll find a way to do it regardless of weapon capacity.

This argument would also apply to fully automatic rifles- a class of weapons that are already heavily restricted for use by the general public. It would also apply to other weapons carried by government infantry, including:

Light machine guns
Hand grenades
Claymore mines
Light anti-armor missiles
40mm grenade launchers
60mm mortars
flame throwers

I could own all these weapons without misusing them, but they are all prohibited or heavily restricted because 1) there really isn't any use for them except for killing people, and 2) the risks to other people involved with owning them are rather high.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Funken.