Just remember, if you aren't breaking the rules you have nothing to fear Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Yeah, this has bothered me since I found out about it March 25th. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
You can't honestly expect me to use the search function!
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Just wanted my a-head-of-the-curve bragging rights! Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I wouldn't fly with one of those.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well who'd have thunk it? Someone invented the absolute best way to kill the airline industry. I thought high gas prices would maim them, but then this little guy come along to put them out of their misery.
I bet rail lobbyists are pushing for it. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
And here I was mad about the story in the paper yesterday where the screeners are searching and seizing laptops, cell phones, etc in total violation of the 4th Amendment. Though I suppose if they're not exactly government employees it doesn't count.
At some point, the consumer is going to have to step in and complain. I haven't flown in two or three years (whenever the guys tried to bring gel explosives on one and made my trip home a nightmare) and have no intention to do so soon. I'd rather take a vacation somewhere nearby than deal with that.
If vacationers won't go and business travelers start video conferencing instead to save money, who's left to appeal to?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's not April 1, right? Someone in the government is actually contemplating a way to make air travel more expensive and less pleasant in the name of an illusion of increased security? And begging for a lawsuit the first time the stupid thing malfunctions?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Someone in the government is actually contemplating a way to make air travel more expensive and less pleasant in the name of an illusion of increased security?
I am actually not so worried about the airline industry. I can't imagine the outcry being anything short of so deafening it will not fly--no pun intended.
The fact the the the Department of Homeland Security is interested in it makes me more worried about their use in the KBR holding facilities / FEMA camps that could be used on mass scale immigration round ups or disaster relief centers.
Katrina Scenario: Welcome to the Superdome. Please put this on, and remember no fighting.
I bet it won't be too long before they are used on the most violent criminals in the worst federal prisons. Incrementally it will creep upon us.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
The internment camps are especially disturbing because they have such a large capacity. IIRC we have or will have enough camps to hold over a million citizens.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And within three weeks the criminals, terrorists, and people that need subduing will know how to use a piece of chewing gum to short circuit the thing, turning it either into ugly harmless jewelry, or a weapon to zap others.
Those of us not prepared, who haven't googled a way around it, and think we are innocent will be the ones painfully zapped.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hey, if it's good enough for mentally disabled children, it's good enough for violent criminals, terrorists, and airline passengers!
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I just read the article and then read some of the comments. One of the comments is from someone who claims to be a representative of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate. Here is his/her comments:
======================
By: S&Tspokesman Shocking, but False
Sometimes it just amazes me how these stories evolve. Let me start off by saying that the Department of Homeland Security’s Science & Technology Directorate nor TSA have been pursuing shock bracelets for airline passengers as alleged by the Washington Times Blog.
This allegation stemmed from a misleading video posted on the Lamberd Website which depicts an ID bracelet that would contain identifying information as well as the ability to stun the wearer. The company claims to connect use of such a device to DHS and TSA, but no discussions between these agencies has ever taken place.
This all originated from a meeting held two years ago with a private company representative (not Lamberd) who proposed bracelet technology in response to the TSA's desire to find less-than-lethal means to detain an apprehended suspect.
The bracelet was never intended to replace boarding passes, contain ID information or be worn by all passengers as asserted in the Lamberd video and discussed in the Washington Times Blog.
The hypothetical use of the bracelet would have been for transporting already apprehended prisoners and detainees at prisons and border patrol facilities, and DHS was looking to see if there were potential air travel applications for apprehended suspects.
This concept was never funded or supported by the DHS or TSA and hasn’t even been discussed for two years. The letter circulating throughout the blogosphere from Paul Ruwaldt was not addressed to Lamberd and merely states the DHS was interested in learning more about the technology. Neither side followed up.
DHS/TSA does NOT support the asserted use and has not pursued the development of such technology. ================
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
It would appear from the company's website that there was letter from Ruwaldt on April 2006 (page 2) that must have been followed up with a meeting on July 2006, because the second letter ( page 2) was a follow up to a July Meeting.
But yeah, it seems after that second letter there was/is no indication of further development, which makes me feel a little better. I have little faith in transparency with that department.
I never really thought it would be used on airlines. I do think it is believable it will be used with ICE and maybe inmates.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Actually in the prison system such a bracelet could be very useful, and would prevent alot of injury. Though I'd start using it with the most violent prisoners on a trial basis. Also I think prison guards who want to use them should be inflicted with the same electricity an inmate would feel.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I've got no problem with "aggressive interrogation" but making every airline passenger wear one of these just in case is too much.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Actually in the prison system such a bracelet could be very useful, and would prevent alot of injury. Though I'd start using it with the most violent prisoners on a trial basis. Also I think prison guards who want to use them should be inflicted with the same electricity an inmate would feel.
No, no, no... In the prison system it's supposed to blow your head off if you get out of range. Don't you watch movies?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well Omega, hopefully if you're ever tortured the torturer will be sufficiently solicitous to use air quotes before getting busy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Actually in the prison system such a bracelet could be very useful, and would prevent alot of injury. Though I'd start using it with the most violent prisoners on a trial basis. Also I think prison guards who want to use them should be inflicted with the same electricity an inmate would feel.
No, no, no... In the prison system it's supposed to blow your head off if you get out of range. Don't you watch movies?
I would never admit to having seen Episode I under any circumstance even if I were to be strapped with one of these bracelets.
But I suppose that concept is found in other movies as well, I can't recall right now which ones.
Why not instead make it so that if an inmate walks out of range his entire family and anyone he cares about blows up instead.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:But I suppose that concept is found in other movies as well, I can't recall right now which ones.
Right off the bat I can think of at least three movies that had such a thing.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Here is a better idea, we put one of these braclets on each member of Congress so that the people they are working for (us) can keep track of them all the time. Further, every time they make a idiot statement or try to screw the public at large, WE get to shock THEM.
Doesn't that sound like a much better idea???
* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I think being randomly Tazered at the whime of some second rate government hack, constitute 'cruel and unusual'.
Further, how about putting these on each of the airline personnel so that when they lose our bags we can collectively Tazer them all. How many bags would be lost, if that was our prerogative?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)