Re: What are the little things that would give ETs amongst us away?

Erik Max Francis <max@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:

I think you're wrong. At least I hope you're wrong.

I think I'm right, and I'm glad I'm right. Because denying reality and
trying to live in a fantasy world is extremely dangerous.

If you're trying to imply that I'm denying reality, I must say I'm rather
insulted.

But the fact of the matter is that I don't hear about people getting
hauled off to jail for making jokes except on airplanes and in airports.
Either that's the only place people make such jokes, it happens but it's
underreported, or for whatever reason air travel is unique in this aspect.

Here's the fundamental point that you seem to be glossing over each time
we discuss this. At the time it happens, _no one knows_ whether it's a
joke or not. The passengers on the plane certainly did not think it was
a joke. The authorities who step in certainly have no idea whether or
not the suspects are guilty of anything, but they need to do their duty,
detain them for everyone's safety, and find out what's going on.

Why is it their duty to arrest people on the basis of a random
bomb-related statement? Nobody has ever demostrated to me how this
procedure improves actual safety, as opposed to improving the apperance of
safety. Every time I bring it up I get nothing but vigorous handwaving of
the type you're performing here.

If they've done nothing wrong, then they get released. Yes, that's
inconvenient -- surely very inconvenient. But the same thing is going
to happen any time you say something extremely stupid in any high
security or high threat situation. This just happens to be but one
(very topical) example.

A high threat situation? As I stated before, to a first approximation a
passenger aircraft is the safest location you can be. It's a high
*profile* situation.

There is absolutely no constructive reason to make such comments in such
a situation

Part of being a free country is that you don't need to have a constructive
reason to do something. Everything which is not explicitly forbidden is
allowed.

-- often there are signs posted in security checkpoints to
that effect.

That doesn't mean these signs are justified.

So anyone actually saying something that stupid is ether
stupid or intends to make trouble.

Maybe they're just testing their principles.

Therefore when they do it, they
should be subject to heightened scrutiny.

Why? Again, how does this improve *actual* safety?

That is all we're really
talking about here. This is pretty elementary common sense, and has
nothing to do with First Amendment rights: You still have a right to
say it, you just will suffer the consequences (imagine that in this day
and age: consequences for your actions ...).

I could do with more consequences for actions and fewer consequences for
stuff you say.

I understand that these people aren't being convicted. But the fact
remains that being arrested is still a punishment, even if it's not
officially viewed as such.

It sucks. But it's not punishment. Neither is being held without bail
because the judge views you as a flight risk, or because you may be a
severe threat to the community. Sentencing after a conviction is
punishment. Define it how you wish, but this how the criminal justice
system works.

It certainly *is* punishment. If you were held in jail overnight for no
reason, would you just ignore it? Just because it's not officially
considered punishment doesn't mean it's not punishment. It's light
compared to an actual criminal conviction, but being physically restrained
falls under any definition of punishment I can think of.

The criminal justice system will fall to pieces if you
have to do the equivalent of proving your case in court before you even
make an arrest.

I'm not saying it's equivalent. I'm saying the standard is non-zero, and
that the given example should fall on the other side of the line.

In the United States, the police must have probable cause to make an
arrest. This requires a "substantial chance" or "fair probability" of
criminal activity.

Making very suspicious remarks in a high security circumstance is just
one of those cases, whether you seem to think it is or not.

When did talking about dying in 30 minutes become "very suspicious
remarks"? Mildly suspicious, perhaps. But if this qualifies as "very",
then you'll quickly run out of adverbs to use when trying to describe
someone who is discussing how he defeated security, or about what kind of
ammunition he brought on board, or how much he appreciates these nice bomb
timers.

I personally don't believe that making a joke is suspicious, and have
trouble understanding the mindset of someone who does.

In a world where there is perfect omniscience on the part of everybody
involved, I'd agree with you. The problem is that when you're involved
in the situation you don't _know_ that they're joking, and you can't know.

Hey, if you overhear someone making an inappropriate joke in a sensitive
situation and you perceive it as a joke and no threat, then _don't do
anything_. If people around you also hear it and perceive it as a
threat but you're still sure it's not, then try and convince them of it.
But in no way can I see their natural instinct to contact the
authorities as inappropriate. In fact it's exactly what security
organizations tell you to do -- pay attention and report any suspicious
behavior.

Yeah, and I find that to be scary as hell. For the most part, the security
organizations involved either don't know what they're doing, or they're
dedicated to security theater. It's the beginnings of a police state where
everybody is spying on their neighbors.

Certainly they are not the same, but an arrest isn't something
insignificant either. It's not as simple as separating police actions into
"conviction" and "non-conviction" sets. If the police are allowed to
arrest people arbitrarily so long as these people are released within a
certain time limit, that sets the stage for massive abuse of police power.

They already are allowed to in some abstract sense -- a policeman can
actually perform an arrest on you for whatever reason he likes. In
order to keep you there -- much less help convict you -- he has to have
a legal reason for doing so. That police officers don't do this in
rampant and abusive ways typically is because it doesn't do them any
good, as because any number of different legal motions will get you
released.

In theory, at least, a police officer must have probable cause in order to
even make the arrest. This is far, far away from "whatever reason he
likes". In reality, you'll probably have a hard time in court if you were
arrested and released without seeing jali.

The problem with your "doesn't do them any good" theory is that it assumes
police officers are completely concentrated on their job. Real police
officers are humans, and humans have annoying neighbors, old enemies, ex
significant others who they resent, etc. Having it actually be illegal to
use their power of arrest to harrass these people is a very handy barrier
to have, once the usual suspects of filing complaints, threatening to vote
for the other guy, etc., have failed.

This is the second time you've used that term and I *still* have no idea
what the relevance is to this discussion. It would be nice if you would
either explain it or stop using it.

I keep mentioning the canard about Constitution being a suicide pact
because your interpretation of human behavior seems to be that people
should, when they see and hear something suspicious that concerns them
to the point that they wish to contact the authorities, shouldn't
because there's always an interpretation that's non-hostile and so they
should overcome their valid. reasonable concerns and pretend like they
didn't hear anything because hey, statistically they're unlikely to be
involved in a terrorist attack, right?

Remember, the passengers _don't know_ whether they're joking or not.

This is a false dichotomy. You seem to be claiming that you either believe
that the only choice is to react to these jokes by taking the joker off
the plane in handcuffs, or not to contact the authorities under any
circumstances.

I believe that contacting the authorities in truly suspicious
circumstances is warranted, but that this situation does not qualify. We
don't disagree on the absolute idea, we merely disagree as to where the
line should be drawn. Trying to paint my position as being one which
involves rationalizing all activity to be non-hostile is putting up a
straw man.

And I *still* have no idea what your suicide pact thing has to do with any
of this. As far as I can tell, the words before the "because" and after
the "because" are unrelated.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
.

Quantcast