Slippery Slope, Increased Security at Malls and Hotels.

• tk421

  

  Here we go, where are all the people who said it wouldn't go any further than the airports? Are you ready to get radiated or "pat" down just to get a hotel or go to the mall? Increased cameras, increased security, increased intrusions into our lives, it looks to me like the terrorists have already won the war. They don't have to hit another target, just some random threat every once and a while and we will keep surrendering more and more rights all in the name of safety.
  
  Doesn't the UK have the highest concentration of cameras in the world? How does that work out stopping crime and preventing terrorist activities? This is all a bunch of power grabbing bull. Pretty soon you won't be able to leave your house without a full government background check and a DHS approved micro chip so that they can track your position at all times.
  
  Anyone want to compare the threat of getting hurt or killed due to a terrorist attack against something we all do every day, driving a car? Why do we give up so much money and power to the government to protect against something when we have a much much greater chance of getting killed going to the store? It boggles my mind.
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101226/bs_afp/usattackssecurity
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Since the article failed to define what exactly the measures would be, it is easy to assume the worst.
  I'll have to read and follow up on the story before thinking about if this is a good or bad idea.
  
  Malls are the easiest targets for terrorists, yet there has been no real planning other than the Columbus one a few years ago. So, any increase may not be warranted.
  Of course there is always the flip side, the agencies have the intelligence and we the public does not.
• dwccrew

  

  There isn't much we can say about what private enterprises like hotels and malls do. They are privately owned, so I am not going to object to this as long as the government isn't forcing them to do this. Private businesses can install whatever security they like, I can choose not to frequent that particular place.
• BGFalcons82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;613977 wrote:Since the article failed to define what exactly the measures would be, it is easy to assume the worst.
  I'll have to read and follow up on the story before thinking about if this is a good or bad idea.
  
  Malls are the easiest targets for terrorists, yet there has been no real planning other than the Columbus one a few years ago. So, any increase may not be warranted.
  Of course there is always the flip side, the agencies have the intelligence and we the public does not.

  
  For groups of congregated people, I would think any sporting event wherein 100,000 people are within sight of one another would be a huge target. As far as damage, when they figure out how to destroy/poison/take-down our infrastructure, then they will have accomplished real terror. For example, how'd you like to wake up and have no water supply? Or have the electric grid taken down for weeks (especially now in NYC or Phila)? That would be real terror and control over our lives.
• ts1227

  

  Considering malls are private property, aren't they within their rights to do whatever the hell they want within the means of the law?
  
  Though I think it's going a little far, it is their mall. As dwccrew said, so long as it isn't a government mandate, it's their prerogative. No one is making you patronize it.
• tk421

  

  ts1227;614602 wrote:Considering malls are private property, aren't they within their rights to do whatever the hell they want within the means of the law?
  
  Though I think it's going a little far, it is their mall. As dwccrew said, so long as it isn't a government mandate, it's their prerogative. No one is making you patronize it.

  How is this any different than airports? Last time I checked, the airports in this country weren't under government control, yet even if the airports want to use private security, the government mandates they still have to use the TSA. Anyone on here honestly think that a mall owner would go as far as the airports and alienate their customers just to shop. Of course the government is going to make them do it, whether they want to or not.
  
  Did you all not read the article at all? It is the head of the DHS saying how they, the government, are going to step up security. No where in that article is anything about the private mall owners being willing to have security.
• dwccrew

  

  tk421;614843 wrote:How is this any different than airports? Last time I checked, the airports in this country weren't under government control, yet even if the airports want to use private security, the government mandates they still have to use the TSA. Anyone on here honestly think that a mall owner would go as far as the airports and alienate their customers just to shop. Of course the government is going to make them do it, whether they want to or not.
  
  Did you all not read the article at all? It is the head of the DHS saying how they, the government, are going to step up security. No where in that article is anything about the private mall owners being willing to have security.

  
  
  Did you read the article? No where in it does it state anything about government mandates at malls or hotels (as the title of the article would imply). It states that employees were trained. At my job (I work for a chemical company, which is a high risk target) we get training all the time from Homeland Security. Training and mandates are two seperate things.
• stlouiedipalma

  Seems Chicken Little is on this thread as well.
• I Wear Pants

  We live in a police state. Might as well get used to it.
• dwccrew

  

  I Wear Pants;616538 wrote:We live in a police state. Might as well get used to it.

  
  You don't really believe this, do you?
• I Wear Pants

  Starting to. We're getting closer and closer every year.
• BoatShoes

  I Wear Pants;617040 wrote:Starting to. We're getting closer and closer every year.

  
  I mean how much closer? Incrementally maybe. No where near our freedoms being truly threatened. I mean we have people on the chatter who have been to the sandbox, socialist countries, the third world. We have it amazingly good to the point of it being nearly radical. And, it will probably stay pretty darn good for the next 100 years. But again, this is just my opinion and I don't share some of the apocalyptic visions of other chatters. The most downtrodden domesticated animals in America have more freedom and security than billions of human beings on earth. I would like for America to remain exceptional, but even supposing that doesn't remain the case, Britain seems to still be doing alright and I imagine we'll be ok too. Nevertheless I imagine we will remain exceptional despite the horror stories. Sure it seems bleak perhaps but we will figure it out as that is the American way. Men with the same last names as ours built the greatest nation in the world out of nothing and through the ebb and flow of progressivism and conservatism have grown her stronger and beyond the high-toned rhetoric which really is no worse than in earlier times, it will again, I imagine. There is cause for concern and perhaps the vacation is over a time but not cause for alarm. Just my opinion of course.
• BGFalcons82

  

  You raise some valid points about 3rd world countries, Boat. Good stuff to ponder. Although, these countries don't have the sophisticated monitoring capabilities and spy networks that we possess, so it's a bit of apples vs. oranges...but I get your point.
  
  I would argue the police state from a different perspective. You mention a 100-year window into the future. I offer a 100-year window into the past. What was the USA like 100 years ago? How about in 1960, right before JFK got shot? How about in 1981 when Reagan's assailant walked right up to him and pulled off several rounds? Just since then, we have red-light cameras, cameras on poles around C-bus in high crime areas, wiretapping without court orders (thanks to the Patriot Act), credit checks for employment, drug testing for anyone earning a paycheck-but not receiving public assistance, sexual assaults in airports, mandatory passports, and drug sniffing dogs in schools daily. Are we more secure? Maybe...maybe not. Have we given up liberties in the name of security? You betcha. We are very close to Orwell's 1984 and will likely be there after the next terrorist blows up a plane or Times Square. Think of where we'd be if that detonator had worked last year. We are getting closer to a police state by the year and your 100 year window is way too wide. Just my opinion of course.
• I Wear Pants

  BoatShoes;617082 wrote:I mean how much closer? Incrementally maybe. No where near our freedoms being truly threatened. I mean we have people on the chatter who have been to the sandbox, socialist countries, the third world. We have it amazingly good to the point of it being nearly radical. And, it will probably stay pretty darn good for the next 100 years. But again, this is just my opinion and I don't share some of the apocalyptic visions of other chatters. The most downtrodden domesticated animals in America have more freedom and security than billions of human beings on earth. I would like for America to remain exceptional, but even supposing that doesn't remain the case, Britain seems to still be doing alright and I imagine we'll be ok too. Nevertheless I imagine we will remain exceptional despite the horror stories. Sure it seems bleak perhaps but we will figure it out as that is the American way. Men with the same last names as ours built the greatest nation in the world out of nothing and through the ebb and flow of progressivism and conservatism have grown her stronger and beyond the high-toned rhetoric which really is no worse than in earlier times, it will again, I imagine. There is cause for concern and perhaps the vacation is over a time but not cause for alarm. Just my opinion of course.

  I am just concerned that we're setting up a framework in which one maleviolent administration or leader can cause an inconceivable amount of damage to our privacy and personal rights (no, hasn't happened yet not with Bush or Obama before anyone whips one of those nuggets out).
  
  Beyond all the cameras and shit like that and body scanners I think the most disturbing trend has been the militarization of our local police. Everytime I hear how they "go to battle on the streets everyday" I get a little shudder.
• Glory Days

  

  I Wear Pants;617149 wrote: Beyond all the cameras and shit like that and body scanners I think the most disturbing trend has been the militarization of our local police. Everytime I hear how they "go to battle on the streets everyday" I get a little shudder.

  
  Is that the police's fault or the thugs that create the environment the police deal with? kind of a chicken and egg thing.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Boatshoes - Check out this story about drawing blood from drivers in Florida that refuse a breathalyzer: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250
  
  4th Amendment, the right for unwarranted search and seizures....adios (the fact a judge is onsite to sign a warrant to draw blood simply because a driver exercises his right to not subjigate themselves to a device that is fallible is a heinous disregard for the accused' rights and lawful behavior)
  5th Amendment, the right to not incriminate oneself...see ya
  The right to be represented by counsel...no way, Jose
  
  All in the name of safety, Americans are forced to give up liberties granted to them by our founding documents. You still thinking 100 years away?
• I Wear Pants

  I give it ten years at most if we keep this pace up.
• Glory Days

  

  BGFalcons82;618004 wrote:Boatshoes - Check out this story about drawing blood from drivers in Florida that refuse a breathalyzer: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250
  
  4th Amendment, the right for unwarranted search and seizures....adios (the fact a judge is onsite to sign a warrant to draw blood simply because a driver exercises his right to not subjigate themselves to a device that is fallible is a heinous disregard for the accused' rights and lawful behavior)
  5th Amendment, the right to not incriminate oneself...see ya
  The right to be represented by counsel...no way, Jose
  
  All in the name of safety, Americans are forced to give up liberties granted to them by our founding documents. You still thinking 100 years away?

  
  i am pretty sure there is some fine print when you get your license about what you agree to involving DUI situations and refusing tests. but anyways, i couldnt tell from the article, but is it mandatory for every car they stop, or just for when they think they have a possible DUI? i wouldnt put it past whoever wrote the article to leave out some key fact like that.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;618004 wrote:Boatshoes - Check out this story about drawing blood from drivers in Florida that refuse a breathalyzer: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250
  
  4th Amendment, the right for unwarranted search and seizures....adios (the fact a judge is onsite to sign a warrant to draw blood simply because a driver exercises his right to not subjigate themselves to a device that is fallible is a heinous disregard for the accused' rights and lawful behavior)
  5th Amendment, the right to not incriminate oneself...see ya
  The right to be represented by counsel...no way, Jose
  
  All in the name of safety, Americans are forced to give up liberties granted to them by our founding documents. You still thinking 100 years away?

  
  Look this isn't a great thing I'd say but it in no way suggests this domineering world of slavery you seem to fear. At the same time, judges have discretion on whether or not to issue a warrant and a reasonable judge won't issue a warrant to draw someone's blood who passes all the field sobriety tests and isn't reasonably suspected of OVI, etc. If you're sober and go through a DUI checkpoint you have nothing to worry about. If you're drunk and go through a DUI checkpoint, you won't avoid your DUI by waiting to get to the station. All of your rights are still guaranteed but the process is expedited.
  
  Fwiw it's worth I don't think it will deter OVI and I'm not particularly in favor of this policy but once again I think your fear is probably misplaced. But I could be wrong. I've been wrong before.
• dwccrew

  

  I Wear Pants;617040 wrote:Starting to. We're getting closer and closer every year.

  
  I meant do you believe we should get used to it? I don't necessarily disagree that we are becoming more and more of a police state, but we should not tolerate it.
• I Wear Pants

  I don't believe we should accept it, which is why I'm against a lot of the different intrusions and policies that are supposed to "protect" us.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  Glory Days;618750 wrote:i am pretty sure there is some fine print when you get your license about what you agree to involving DUI situations and refusing tests

  You are right about the fine print. Right underneath my signature of my FL drivers license it clearly states "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law"
• BGFalcons82

  

  Bio-Hazzzzard;619115 wrote:You are right about the fine print. Right underneath my signature of my FL drivers license it clearly states "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law"

  
  So that's it? Just put anything out there, regardless of the Constitution/Bill of Rights? Trample, stomp, stampede, ignore, disdain, and run over our rights....all in the name of safety?
• I Wear Pants

  BG, the terrorists and drunks and other malintents are out to get us. Rights mean nothing if we aren't safe. We have to be safe.
  
  
• stlouiedipalma

  Unless I'm mistaken, driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.