[Blue Lion]

I didn't say it was, I said protectiveness of our partners and compassion towards their concerns is. Empathy, it's a very human trait.

I'm not really asking that everyone have a problem with it, but there still has to be consideration given to those who do have concerns, otherwise we are backtracking on years of progress, an answer along the lines of 'tough luck',to those people, to me, suggests that the feelings and concerns of those who are not 'with us' are losing importance, and if that's the case, we aren't fighting oppressive regimes, we are creating them.

But you ARE protecting them. You're just trading "they won't see her body" for "people won't blow her up".

[General Battuta]

Have any evidence for that?

[Flipside]

I don't even think he's reading my posts to be honest.

I knew it was a mistake to ask here.

So, for the third time, it's not about the tech, it's about the way it's implemented. I don't have a problem with the idea of the scanners as long as they are used in such a way as to respect the people being scanned, and that the same sort of defences are put in place here as are in place in any other situation where a persons body needs to be examined.

[Nuke]

id rather take my chances with the terrorists.

[Rian]

What it has to come down to is whether the sacrifices we make in privacy are compensated by a sufficient improvement in security. For that reason I don’t think it’s valid to assume that this technology will make us safer, even just for the sake of argument, because it completely alters the terms of that balance and invalidates any conclusion reached.

In this case, I think the costs of implementing the body scan technology vastly outweigh the projected benefits. The expense, training costs, inconvenience, and breach of privacy it would entail are not acceptable when weighed against the (dubious) benefits.

Besides, air travel is already the safest mode of transit by far, and you’re about twenty times more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be a victim of terrorism in-flight. If you can’t handle that amount of risk, you should probably be cowering in a bunker somewhere anyway.

[General Battuta]

Seriously.

If you flew on airplanes continuously for about 3000 years, odds are you would encounter 1 terrorist attack at about year 3000.

[Blue Lion]

I don't even think he's reading my posts to be honest.

I knew it was a mistake to ask here.

So, for the third time, it's not about the tech, it's about the way it's implemented. I don't have a problem with the idea of the scanners as long as they are used in such a way as to respect the people being scanned, and that the same sort of defences are put in place here as are in place in any other situation where a persons body needs to be examined.

And as I've said before, as long as the people are properly trained, whether it's a man or woman looking is completely meaningless to the process save the shyness of the person being scanned.

The people doing the scanning is not the issue. We've all agreed these people need to be properly trained and not perverts who will scan women and then call them over to "pat them down".

No one is arguing against that. I don't even think that's a point you're making but I want to clarify that for the next piece. As long as they aren't dangerous to the person, I don't care about their gender or whether or not they can see their face.

I'm not saying your concerns are wrong, or that you shouldn't have them. But in terms of security and what we're talking about here, it's irrelevant.

[Blue Lion]

What it has to come down to is whether the sacrifices we make in privacy are compensated by a sufficient improvement in security. For that reason I don’t think it’s valid to assume that this technology will make us safer, even just for the sake of argument, because it completely alters the terms of that balance and invalidates any conclusion reached.

In this case, I think the costs of implementing the body scan technology vastly outweigh the projected benefits. The expense, training costs, inconvenience, and breach of privacy it would entail are not acceptable when weighed against the (dubious) benefits.

Besides, air travel is already the safest mode of transit by far, and you’re about twenty times more likely to be killed by lightning than you are to be killed by a terrorist in-flight. If you can’t handle that amount of risk, you should probably be cowering in a bunker somewhere anyway.

We are basing this on the assumption that it works (I am anyways). If it doesn't work, then any privacy issues are meaningless since we shouldn't be using it then.

[NGTM-1R]

Legal leg to stand on? I'm not taking this to court, I'm trying to define some basic level of decency and rights for the people who will be examined by these things. There's considerably more to the world, and to humanity than 'legal legs'.

How is such a thing expressed and enforced in society?

The courts.

As for the 'gay woman' thing, go up to a Lesbian and accuse her of being 'just like a man' because of her sexual preferences. I'll speak to you when you get out of hospital.

That is absolutely unrelated to anything in the argument.

We're talking about why Sharon would be uncomfortable with being observed in this fashion. If it's not sexual, then it's a blanket problem and should apply to all sexes; you rejected that earlier in the thread with your agreement with Dekker. But if it is sexual, i.e. oh gross somebody's getting off to this, then it should apply to both heterosexual men and and homosexual women...yet you've rejected that too.

So basically there's nothing left here. This Doesn't Work.

You seem to be of the opinion thay no loss of personal privacy is too great for the sake of security, that's more than a bit troubling.

I have said nothing of the sort, and believe nothing of the sort, and you have no reason to say that I do, except as an ad hominem and straw man.


Now if you're going to make coherent cost-based arguments like Rian, then we can talk. But you haven't got anything Flip, you've contradicted yourself and you're trying to talk "human dignity" as if keeping that sort of thing safe isn't part of the job of the legal system, so I don't even know where you're coming from. Nothing you've said makes any real sense.

[Rian]

What it has to come down to is whether the sacrifices we make in privacy are compensated by a sufficient improvement in security. For that reason I don’t think it’s valid to assume that this technology will make us safer, even just for the sake of argument, because it completely alters the terms of that balance and invalidates any conclusion reached.

In this case, I think the costs of implementing the body scan technology vastly outweigh the projected benefits. The expense, training costs, inconvenience, and breach of privacy it would entail are not acceptable when weighed against the (dubious) benefits.

Besides, air travel is already the safest mode of transit by far, and you’re about twenty times more likely to be killed by lightning than you are to be killed by a terrorist in-flight. If you can’t handle that amount of risk, you should probably be cowering in a bunker somewhere anyway.

We are basing this on the assumption that it works (I am anyways). If it doesn't work, then any privacy issues are meaningless since we shouldn't be using it then.

The first paragraph of that post you quoted explicitly states why we should make no such assumptions. It invalidates the cost-benefit analysis and produces misleading conclusions.

I edited the original post to more accurately state the statistical comparison. The argument is unchanged.

[Flipside]

Quote from: Flipside on 11 January 2010, 23:52:32
Legal leg to stand on? I'm not taking this to court, I'm trying to define some basic level of decency and rights for the people who will be examined by these things. There's considerably more to the world, and to humanity than 'legal legs'.

How is such a thing expressed and enforced in society?

The courts.

Quote from: Flipside on 11 January 2010, 23:52:32
As for the 'gay woman' thing, go up to a Lesbian and accuse her of being 'just like a man' because of her sexual preferences. I'll speak to you when you get out of hospital.

That is absolutely unrelated to anything in the argument.

We're talking about why Sharon would be uncomfortable with being observed in this fashion. If it's not sexual, then it's a blanket problem and should apply to all sexes; you rejected that earlier in the thread with your agreement with Dekker. But if it is sexual, i.e. oh gross somebody's getting off to this, then it should apply to both heterosexual men and and homosexual women...yet you've rejected that too.

So basically there's nothing left here. This Doesn't Work.

Quote from: Flipside on 11 January 2010, 23:52:32
You seem to be of the opinion thay no loss of personal privacy is too great for the sake of security, that's more than a bit troubling.

I have said nothing of the sort, and believe nothing of the sort, and you have no reason to say that I do, except as an ad hominem and straw man.


Now if you're going to make coherent cost-based arguments like Rian, then we can talk. But you haven't got anything Flip, you've contradicted yourself and you're trying to talk "human dignity" as if keeping that sort of thing safe isn't part of the job of the legal system, so I don't even know where you're coming from. Nothing you've said makes any real sense.

And you think that hurling insults makes you right?

I can see that it really is pointless trying to have any kind of conversation here, I never stated it was about sexual arousal, I didn't define what concerned me because I cannot define in words what concerns me, this was clarified later on by Rian who stated exactly the same thing, that it's a question of emotion.

Frankly, I can remember when this site was full of intelligent people who could hold a debate without hurling insulting and small minded comments. Sadly I can see those days are gone.

[General Battuta]

Okay, wow, this is disgusting. Leave Flipside alone. NGTM-1R, you need to back way off. You are now aggressively pressing a person who is not even present on the boards to conform to your opinions.

Locked.

EDIT: oh, already locked. Good move.

God, what a sad day for GenDisc. People need to learn some etiquette. There is no excuse for this behavior.

[Flipside]

Well, to be honest, having read ngt's post again, it's not only attempting to attack me, it's attempting to attack my relationship, and feelings for, my partner. ngt obviously thinks that nothing is worth respect if it doesn't match up to his own opinion, and that there is nothing he cannot attack or insult if he feels he is right. He refuses to argue like an adult and instead reverts to childish attacks and, quite frankly, in insulting my relationship and feelings for Sharon, he has crossed the line.

I can't stay in a Forum with people like that, sorry, but when someone demands that I justify caring about my wifes' concerns, and tries to reduce my feelings for her to some kind of legal argument, it's obvious I'm dealing with someone who has never been in love and has no clue what it entails, and has no concept of standing up for someone else's feelings.

For that reason, I'm hanging up my GenDis badge, I've tried treating everyone in here like mature adults, and some people seem incapable of being so, at 37 I no longer have the patience to deal with squalling children who are more concerned with 'winning arguments' than actually having an intelligent discussion or even attempting to empathise with people who's opinion is different from their own.

From here on outwards you are at the mercy of Nuke and Colonol Decker, I'm just going to be sticking to the Diaspora and other Freespace project forums.

[Colonol Dekker]

Well done guys.
 
This shows how being stubborn and unwilling to listen can totally ruin a situation.