New TSA directives

[adurso]

Yeah this is why the Brits were in Australia, Africa and America, Frenches in America and Africa and Spaniards in the Americas as well. and now this is why we are now in Iraq and Afganistan.

Come on people just be honest with yourselves. Western countries come to other places f### everything up get resources and then complain that others hate them and trying to kill them all. BS, sorry

After all Christianity is one of the bloodiest religions if you look back into the history

How does this fit into that worldview?:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_psts/schiss.pdf

 

[Rutger]

Of special interest to Canadians, and a point most may not realize. The TSA requirements actually force Canadian airline corporations to violate our charter rights as well as the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) through the type of information they collect on passengers and the "no-fly" list requirements.

Its amazing that more people are not screaming about the ridiculousness of these new requirements OR the previous old requirements that have proven to have done absolutely nothing to "protect" people.

Best way to solve this problem, is to download the responsibilities of protecting themselves to the passengers, so that they are inclined to remain vigilant when they see someone mixing noxious chemicals in their crotch.

 

[elan]

How does this fit into that worldview?:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006psa_psts/schiss.pdf

My immune system was very well trained not to take any ex-Soviet, US or any other kind of propaganda BS.

 

[elan]

Of special interest to Canadians, and a point most may not realize. The TSA requirements actually force Canadian airline corporations to violate our charter rights as well as the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) through the type of information they collect on passengers and the "no-fly" list requirements.

Well we at least have an option not to fly to/out of the US. If one does not want the info to be collected one does not need to fly there. Our US fellows have less choice.

Flying to the US became quite a hassle so we just either drive - when we go nearby or just fly to other places for vacations for those whose business depends upon the flights it`s a pain.

 

[adurso]

My immune system was very well trained not to take any ex-Soviet, US or any other kind of propaganda BS.

<snort> The problem is that others have not had that training; the presenter is a USAF General, the audience originally was the US Command structure. Are they buying into it?

 

[Rutger]

Well we at least have an option not to fly to/out of the US. If one does not want the info to be collected one does not need to fly there. Our US fellows have less choice.

Flying to the US became quite a hassle so we just either drive - when we go nearby or just fly to other places for vacations for those whose business depends upon the flights it`s a pain.

It doesn't matter if the USA is your destination, it is a requirement for any flight that travels near US airspace. This includes every flight that leaves airports such as Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, due to the proximity of their takeoff and landing pattern, as well as any flight that flies to Mexico, South America or Caribbean. All popular diving destinations. Unless you plan on never leaving the country, not flying is not an option for most people.

Not to mention that driving still requires you to answer even more invasive questions thanks to US-DHS. At least in that case you are choosing to enter the USA and thereby consenting to the loss of privacy.

Why should I have my privacy rights infringed upon by the American government when I'm not even going to their country on a flight to Mexico?

 

[Gilldiver]

From : Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

The way this works is like clockwork:

1) terrorist attack

2) official declarations that system worked--sort of, followed by announcements of new restrictions

3) experts decry lack of prevention, say system should anticipate all surprises

4) "links" discovered

5) official condemnations by out-of-power party

6) responsibility formally "claimed" by X (waiting to make sure we're suitably freaked first)

7) discovery that so-and-so was actually on one of THE LISTS!

8) President declares the government will take event VERY seriously

9) the dreaded pre-attack warning memo is located, from among a pile of several thousand memos warning of other attacks that never happened

10) Congress launches an official investigation.

And the merry-go-round cranks up its speed . . ..

The only fun part is timing the gaps between steps, but it's all so predictable.

 

[elan]

<snort> The problem is that others have not had that training; the presenter is a USAF General, the audience originally was the US Command structure. Are they buying into it?

They, as a part of the army, by definition have no choice whether they are buying into it or not And military, by definition, has to take only one side of the story

 

[elan]

Not to mention that driving still requires you to answer even more invasive questions thanks to US-DHS. At least in that case you are choosing to enter the USA and thereby consenting to the loss of privacy.

Why should I have my privacy rights infringed upon by the American government when I'm not even going to their country on a flight to Mexico?

Yes I agree with you, that sucks, not that I care about sharing the information with the US government as over the times I think they got all the information already but the whole concept is wrong.

 

[Code Monkey]

No worries. I just came home, yesterday, from Phuket. Had the full pat-down and thorough search of the regs and (especially) the personal locator beacon. The biggest problem was really my daughters Epinephrine pens for her allergy. Still, no biggie -- we got on the plane just fine.