Well, many DUers were calling the initial screening established post 9-11 the beginning of a slippery slope. Were they correct, or is there some reasonable intermediate delineation that you can offer? Surely you’re not advocating for NO security.
If you agree that some security is necessary, then you have to agree that some sort of meaningful bureaucratic structure has to be established, too? Either governmental or corporate. Something that handles everyone, or one that is based on profiling (ergo, database). Instant slippery slope, regardless of the level decided upon.
If you agree that some security is necessary, then you have to agree that some sort of meaningful bureaucratic structure has to be established, too? Either governmental or corporate. Something that handles everyone, or one that is based on profiling (ergo, database). Instant slippery slope, regardless of the level decided upon.
We need more trust. Here's a news flash, every one of us will die some day. We shouldn't treat people like criminals if they've given us no reason to treat 'em as such. The system currently in place assumes everyone is guilty until proven innocent. If this was the policy of a private business or entity, fine. One could take their business elsewhere. but it's not a private business, it's a public government business, and one of the wrong type. This does nothing to deter terrorism and just causes problems and an annoyance for the people who are innocent. We'll never 100% be rid of problems or those who wish to do stupid stuff and harm others. We shouldn't try a catch all system. Life is too short for these types of games, but we're gonna be forced to play 'em anyway.