|
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Oct 31, 8:53?am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify boaters. Old news - in fact, I posted something about this a couple of months ago. You scooped USA Today by a couple of months? Good job. :-) This is very problematic both in terms of concept and execution. Ain't gonna happen. Don't be so sure. There are calls for a "national ID card" from a number of sectors right now. Lots of people want to know just who the "real" Americans are. Lage vessels are already required to carry transponders by the A.I.S. system. Extending that to all vessels wouldn't be an entirely ridiculous possibility. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Oct 31, 3:59?pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:54 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: |Cite? | |You don't need one, Gene. No, you need one.... No, I really don't. Anyone with a functional mind and internet access can find this out for themselves if it disturbs them in some way. Gould lives on a diet of unsubstatiated PR releases. His post is nothing but FUD FACT: the USCG is AGAINST the idea of a federal boater ID document. EOD Fact is, you stated there was a written proposal and characterized certain statements in the proposal as emphatic. Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you climbed too far out on the limb and proceeded to saw it off at the trunk. The name calling and personal attacks are usually the first refuge of a guy who knows he has lost. Gene and I have pointed out where the USCG commandant, as recently as 10 months ago, was calling for a national boating license. The cite I provided quotes the head of BOAT/US concerned that the USCG is providing "conflicting information". If you have anything except pure speculation or hearsay to back up your position, please post it. Trust me, "trust me" just doesn't cut it these days. :-) |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On 31 Oct 2007 16:03:01 -0700, Chuck Gould penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | |Lage vessels are already required to carry transponders by the A.I.S. |system. Extending that to all vessels wouldn't be an entirely |ridiculous possibility. Except in busy areas the radar screen would look like a huge blob of white.... unless they split the area up into a gazillion sectors. It would be as big a mess as ATC.... both which they would probably privatize out to the lowest bidding county..... go figure..... -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote: Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a federal voter ID. Another argument to keep the Electoral College. The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO. Enforce the 10th Amendment. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On 31 Oct 2007 16:03:01 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote: On Oct 31, 8:53?am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify boaters. Old news - in fact, I posted something about this a couple of months ago. You scooped USA Today by a couple of months? Good job. :-) Actually, yes. So did you in fact - in 2005. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...eb23c907f2d3f2 This is very problematic both in terms of concept and execution. Ain't gonna happen. Don't be so sure. There are calls for a "national ID card" from a number of sectors right now. Lots of people want to know just who the "real" Americans are. Lage vessels are already required to carry transponders by the A.I.S. system. Extending that to all vessels wouldn't be an entirely ridiculous possibility. That's all fine and good - you are talking about a huge number of small boats that aren't even efficiently controlled by state statute never mind Federal. A perfect example was the Newport Bridge fiasco. DHS, USCG and Navy closed off the Newport Bridge to any boat within 500 yards of any piling and/or abutment. No exceptions. When it was pointed out that the narrows is only 1,200 yards wide and that any and all traffic would be prevented from entering or exiting Narragansett Bay, it kind of went away. Proposals like a ID card or transponders isn't workable for any number of reasons including enforcement. They can't enforce the rules now as they discovered with the Newport Bridge - how the hell are they going to enforce universal ID or get the money for computer support for transponders? And think of the technical challenge with transponders. On any given summer day, there are thousands of boats with easy access to power plants, airport runways, bridges, shipping - you name it. The reasonable approach would be to allow a stop and check ID - which would be a state driver's license or similar boating license. Any other approach is just plain silly. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... The reasonable approach would be to allow a stop and check ID - which would be a state driver's license or similar boating license. Any other approach is just plain silly. In other words, count on it happening. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
Eisboch wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 31, 10:39?am, "Eisboch" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message ups.com... One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but only for documents identifying the boat. Some additional insight on this issue: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...mber/Gov.Lacks... That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that is empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who they are arresting. Eisboch I'm far from entirely informed on the details of USCG arrest powers (thank heavens!), but they may be allowed to ask for ID when making an arrest but not when conducting a boarding. A failure to identify the person being arrested would be contrary to the Constitution on an extremely fundamental basis. How could anybody rely on the right of habeus corpus if the government could factually claim "We have no idea who we have in custody!"? I never knew this before until a week or so ago. There was a show on "The Military Channel" that was doing a feature on each of the armed forces academies. The CG is the only one that can make an arrest. The Navy can stop, board and search but if an arrest requirement results, they have to hold the subjects and call for the CG. There has been a program between the Navy and CG, kind of like an exchange program, to familiarize the officers with the other services operations for years. Originally to enable faster integration between the two during times of war. It appears that this program has evolved into a program where a CG officer is embarked on Naval warships for the ability to enable arrests on the high seas. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:28:00 -0500, John H. penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with explosives and used to blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements *could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card. (Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals in several areas). Snipped I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not. Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to same. Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or birth certificates. Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing the same. Wouldn't it be more prudent and cost effective to have chips implanted at birth? No more lost children or adults, in case of emergency you could be immediately located and identified, and the government would know where you are at any given time. No more terrorism! People would be resistant to upgrades. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have a birth certificate. It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted chips at birth is not out of the question. Eisboch Very, VERY bad idea.... I can think of one presidential candidate who would probably love the idea. You know .... the one that wants to bonus every kid with 5k at birth. How else will your "investment" be tracked? Eisboch Read a story in the NY Times about a month ago, about a British woman who's been visiting here to teach for quite a few years. Suddenly, her visa was revoked. Friends here have asked their congressman to look into it, and they've had lawyers pound the government for answers, but absolutely nobody can seem to find out what the problem is. She doesn't seem to be even remotely connected with terrorism issues. What right does she have to be here in the first place. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have a birth certificate. It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted chips at birth is not out of the question. Eisboch Very, VERY bad idea.... I can think of one presidential candidate who would probably love the idea. You know .... the one that wants to bonus every kid with 5k at birth. How else will your "investment" be tracked? Eisboch Read a story in the NY Times about a month ago, about a British woman who's been visiting here to teach for quite a few years. Suddenly, her visa was revoked. Friends here have asked their congressman to look into it, and they've had lawyers pound the government for answers, but absolutely nobody can seem to find out what the problem is. She doesn't seem to be even remotely connected with terrorism issues. What right does she have to be here in the first place. Nice try, pulling the word "right" outta your ass, child. Who told you to say that? |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On 31 Oct 2007 16:03:01 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote: Lage vessels are already required to carry transponders by the A.I.S. system. Extending that to all vessels wouldn't be an entirely ridiculous possibility. It would be easy but I don't think people will put up with it, imagine something like prohibition or the 55 mph speed limit where over 50% of the population became law breakers. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have a birth certificate. It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted chips at birth is not out of the question. Eisboch Very, VERY bad idea.... I can think of one presidential candidate who would probably love the idea. You know .... the one that wants to bonus every kid with 5k at birth. How else will your "investment" be tracked? Eisboch Read a story in the NY Times about a month ago, about a British woman who's been visiting here to teach for quite a few years. Suddenly, her visa was revoked. Friends here have asked their congressman to look into it, and they've had lawyers pound the government for answers, but absolutely nobody can seem to find out what the problem is. She doesn't seem to be even remotely connected with terrorism issues. What right does she have to be here in the first place. Nice try, pulling the word "right" outta your ass, child. Who told you to say that? Answer the question. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have a birth certificate. It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted chips at birth is not out of the question. Eisboch Very, VERY bad idea.... I can think of one presidential candidate who would probably love the idea. You know .... the one that wants to bonus every kid with 5k at birth. How else will your "investment" be tracked? Eisboch Read a story in the NY Times about a month ago, about a British woman who's been visiting here to teach for quite a few years. Suddenly, her visa was revoked. Friends here have asked their congressman to look into it, and they've had lawyers pound the government for answers, but absolutely nobody can seem to find out what the problem is. She doesn't seem to be even remotely connected with terrorism issues. What right does she have to be here in the first place. Nice try, pulling the word "right" outta your ass, child. Who told you to say that? Answer the question. OK, you're right, as long as you don't claim that we don't have the right to travel anywhere we want within this country, barring private property. Now, tell me how your "right" comment makes this OK, child: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/ny...icologist.html |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:17:22 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
The Navy can stop, board and search but if an arrest requirement results, they have to hold the subjects and call for the CG. What is the difference between being "held" and being "arrested"? It is illegal to resist arrest, what about "held"? I suppose you could be charged with obstructing governmental administration or some such. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:17:22 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The Navy can stop, board and search but if an arrest requirement results, they have to hold the subjects and call for the CG. What is the difference between being "held" and being "arrested"? It is illegal to resist arrest, what about "held"? I suppose you could be charged with obstructing governmental administration or some such. http://public.findlaw.com/traffic-ti...stop-searches/ |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
|
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:20:13 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: Wouldn't it be more prudent and cost effective to have chips implanted at birth? No more lost children or adults, in case of emergency you could be immediately located and identified, and the government would know where you are at any given time. No more terrorism! -- If I could get on a plane without doing the airport hokey pokey, buy things by waving my hand at the cash register and make it harder for someone to impersonate me at the bank I would take a chip today. If something like this happened to you, I think you'd carve that chip out of your skin with a dull knife in an instant: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/ny...icologist.html Why would the chip facilitate this case? More likely would prevent some mistaken identity problems. My buddy, who is a retired Marine Colonel, was stopped at the MX border while returning to the US. Had the same name as somebody on the watch list. Had to convince them that he was not the other person. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:20:13 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: Wouldn't it be more prudent and cost effective to have chips implanted at birth? No more lost children or adults, in case of emergency you could be immediately located and identified, and the government would know where you are at any given time. No more terrorism! -- If I could get on a plane without doing the airport hokey pokey, buy things by waving my hand at the cash register and make it harder for someone to impersonate me at the bank I would take a chip today. If something like this happened to you, I think you'd carve that chip out of your skin with a dull knife in an instant: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/ny...icologist.html Why would the chip facilitate this case? More likely would prevent some mistaken identity problems. My buddy, who is a retired Marine Colonel, was stopped at the MX border while returning to the US. Had the same name as somebody on the watch list. Had to convince them that he was not the other person. Your buddy's situation may be quite different than that of the woman in the article. She may be the only person on earth with that name, but somehow, she's been pegged as persona non grata. How would a chip help her? |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Oct 31, 9:17 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with explosives and used to blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements *could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card. (Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals in several areas). These programs tend to grow like Topsy. Once the "ID Card" gets the camel nose under the tent, some bureaucrat on a 4-hour lunchbreak in DC will get the bright idea..."Hey, if we require every boat to carry a GPS transponder we'll need a new department with 50,000 employees and 200 locations to track the movement of every boat on the water. I can be appointed supervisor and get promoted from a GS(whatever) to a grade where I'll make another $100k a year! We can require every boater to buy a transponder, and put in a tax of $100 per boat per year to support the monitoring!" ID card?, maybe mandatory transponders?, perhaps eventually mandatory GPS "chips" carried on the person 24/7 so everybody can be monitored at all times wherever they go? If the 9-11 terrorists had a goal to prfoundly change our way of life in America, it looks like they succeeded. George Orwell was right, he just never anticipated the government would be spying on us all by satellite. At least it will be easy to know how the bad guys are. They will be the folks who don't carry the ID, don't use the transponder, and don't carry their mandatory GPS personal tracking chip 24-7. Of course we won't know *where* they are until it's too late.......so what's the real difference between all of the potential government snooping and just letting people live their lives with a modicum of privacy? sounds to me like the old "chip-under-the-skin" deal. 1984? |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... I like it. Think about it .... 100 years ago nobody had a driver's license or a social security card number. Many probably didn't even have a birth certificate. It gives cause to really think about where we are heading. Implanted chips at birth is not out of the question. Eisboch Very, VERY bad idea.... I can think of one presidential candidate who would probably love the idea. You know .... the one that wants to bonus every kid with 5k at birth. How else will your "investment" be tracked? Eisboch Read a story in the NY Times about a month ago, about a British woman who's been visiting here to teach for quite a few years. Suddenly, her visa was revoked. Friends here have asked their congressman to look into it, and they've had lawyers pound the government for answers, but absolutely nobody can seem to find out what the problem is. She doesn't seem to be even remotely connected with terrorism issues. With a government like ours, this could be you or I mistakenly labeled as who-knows-what. I wouldn't wanna be "chipped" under those circumstances. Joe, I have been forwarding all of your posts to the proper govt. agency, and they do not appreciate your attitude. I am not sure what they meant, but they said something about Gitmo. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Nov 1, 7:35?am, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:39 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: On Oct 31, 3:59?pm, wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:54 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: |Cite? | |You don't need one, Gene. No, you need one.... No, I really don't. Anyone with a functional mind and internet access can find this out for themselves if it disturbs them in some way. Gould lives on a diet of unsubstatiated PR releases. His post is nothing but FUD FACT: the USCG is AGAINST the idea of a federal boater ID document. EOD Fact is, you stated there was a written proposal and characterized certain statements in the proposal as emphatic. Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you climbed too far out on the limb and proceeded to saw it off at the trunk. The name calling and personal attacks are usually the first refuge of a guy who knows he has lost. Gene and I have pointed out where the USCG commandant, as recently as 10 months ago, was calling for a national boating license. The cite I provided quotes the head of BOAT/US concerned that the USCG is providing "conflicting information". If you have anything except pure speculation or hearsay to back up your position, please post it. Trust me, "trust me" just doesn't cut it these days. :-) Here ya go, asswipe. http://www.boatus.com/news/buoy11_07.htm Now shut the **** up- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Wouldn't it have been just as easy to post the link to this information a ways up the thread? Of course that would wasted some great opportunities for making derogatory personal comments and for posting profanity to the NG. People do gather in a newsgroup for a wide variety of reasons, don't they? Interesting item. BoatUS is reporting what they have been *told* the final recommendation will include. Still, I don't see the final WRITTEN proposal referred to up the line. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Nov 1, 9:21?am, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:00:24 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: On Nov 1, 7:35?am, wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:39 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: On Oct 31, 3:59?pm, wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:54 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: |Cite? | |You don't need one, Gene. No, you need one.... No, I really don't. Anyone with a functional mind and internet access can find this out for themselves if it disturbs them in some way. Gould lives on a diet of unsubstatiated PR releases. His post is nothing but FUD FACT: the USCG is AGAINST the idea of a federal boater ID document. EOD Fact is, you stated there was a written proposal and characterized certain statements in the proposal as emphatic. Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you climbed too far out on the limb and proceeded to saw it off at the trunk. The name calling and personal attacks are usually the first refuge of a guy who knows he has lost. Gene and I have pointed out where the USCG commandant, as recently as 10 months ago, was calling for a national boating license. The cite I provided quotes the head of BOAT/US concerned that the USCG is providing "conflicting information". If you have anything except pure speculation or hearsay to back up your position, please post it. Trust me, "trust me" just doesn't cut it these days. :-) Here ya go, asswipe. http://www.boatus.com/news/buoy11_07.htm Now shut the **** up- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Wouldn't it have been just as easy to post the link to this information a ways up the thread? Of course that would wasted some great opportunities for making derogatory personal comments and for posting profanity to the NG. People do gather in a newsgroup for a wide variety of reasons, don't they? Interesting item. BoatUS is reporting what they have been *told* the final recommendation will include. Still, I don't see the final WRITTEN proposal referred to up the line. You keep adding the word final. I'm not responsible for your mental weaknesses. I NEVER said final. You ranted on and on about something from 10 months ago, and refused to believe that things might have changed in all of that time. I guess that makes you something of a retard. You truly are a mindless slave to PR releases. And you were dead WRONG. Too small a man to admit it, aren't you? I believe I also told you to shut the **** up. Please do.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Repeating the same lie over and over again won't make it true. On October 31 you posted, in this thread, exactly: **** The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a drivers license or other similar ID. **** It appeared on my service just before noon. All of the comments about never claiming there was a WRITTEN proposal are just so much BS, aren't they? Keep expanding your vocabulary. You'll be amazed at how many intersting words you will find to use that have more than four letters. :-) |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
|
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
|
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:02:48 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:32:34 -0500, wrote: The various flavors of local marine police routinely ask for ID. Don't know what happens if you don't have any. Where was that? NY, Long Island Sound in my hot rod inflatable days... :-) LIS is getting ridiculous in and around the Race area. Last year, I was stopped twice by DEM (RI), DEP (CT) and DEC (NY) checking on striper length and fish totals. I've heard that this year was the same - on some days you could be stopped twice by the same fisheries enforcement types. Freakin' ridiculous. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:07:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: The various flavors of local marine police routinely ask for ID. Don't know what happens if you don't have any. Where was that? NY, Long Island Sound in my hot rod inflatable days... :-) LIS is getting ridiculous in and around the Race area. Last year, I was stopped twice by DEM (RI), DEP (CT) and DEC (NY) checking on striper length and fish totals. I've heard that this year was the same - on some days you could be stopped twice by the same fisheries enforcement types. Freakin' ridiculous. Absolutely, and it is happening all over. The marine police in Stamford, CT have at least 3 or 4 boats, the latest being a 30 something high powered catamarran, just what they need for zooming up and down the harbor. Where do they get the money for this stuff, and who is justifying the expense? The marine police in Suffolk County, LI are running at least a couple of Bertram 33s with 454s, talk about fuel expense. We need to find a way of attacking at the budget level. That is the oxygen flow for excessive policing. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
|
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:48:40 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:07:47 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: The various flavors of local marine police routinely ask for ID. Don't know what happens if you don't have any. Where was that? NY, Long Island Sound in my hot rod inflatable days... :-) LIS is getting ridiculous in and around the Race area. Last year, I was stopped twice by DEM (RI), DEP (CT) and DEC (NY) checking on striper length and fish totals. I've heard that this year was the same - on some days you could be stopped twice by the same fisheries enforcement types. Freakin' ridiculous. Absolutely, and it is happening all over. The marine police in Stamford, CT have at least 3 or 4 boats, the latest being a 30 something high powered catamarran, just what they need for zooming up and down the harbor. Where do they get the money for this stuff, and who is justifying the expense? The marine police in Suffolk County, LI are running at least a couple of Bertram 33s with 454s, talk about fuel expense. We need to find a way of attacking at the budget level. That is the oxygen flow for excessive policing. When the money comes from DEA and DHS with no restrictions to the public safety types, they spend it on anything they want. For instance, the local dive team just bought a new RIB with 75 horse outboard and trailer with tow vehicle ( F-450 Crew Cab) and a 18 bottle cascade air system with super duper compressor. The last SAR we did was over ten years ago and the last mutual aid call was five years ago and that was just to standby while the SP took the search over. At least the cascade system can be used by the fire departments. Which brings up another sore point. We have three fire departments in town. With all these DHS grants to upgrade, we now have more rolling fire equipment than New York City. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:16:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: We need to find a way of attacking at the budget level. That is the oxygen flow for excessive policing. When the money comes from DEA and DHS with no restrictions to the public safety types, they spend it on anything they want. For instance, the local dive team just bought a new RIB with 75 horse outboard and trailer with tow vehicle ( F-450 Crew Cab) and a 18 bottle cascade air system with super duper compressor. The last SAR we did was over ten years ago and the last mutual aid call was five years ago and that was just to standby while the SP took the search over. At least the cascade system can be used by the fire departments. Which brings up another sore point. We have three fire departments in town. With all these DHS grants to upgrade, we now have more rolling fire equipment than New York City. What a waste. Meanwhile other important services like ICW and inlet dredging go under funded. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
|
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:01:53 -0700, Tim wrote:
sounds to me like the old "chip-under-the-skin" deal. 1984? Yes, it's pretty easy to imagine something like that now that technology has evolved the way it has. Imagine that you now have the ID chip that everyone thought would be a good idea to reduce crime of all kinds, and also imagine that you are enrolled in the nationally funded health plan that everyone thought was such a good idea. The health plan knows *everything* about you of course. Suppose you are now sitting down to eat in a nice restaurant at an "on topic" marina, about to order their world class prime ribs. They've already scanned your chip at the door of course so that they know you won't be a criminal threat, and so you don't have to worry about carrying your credit cards. As you place your order, an alert comes up from the health plan telling you not to order the prime ribs because they are bad for your high cholesterol ( a function my wife presently performs). You press the over ride button because you're willing to take a calculated risk once in a while. Another message comes back and says: "Fine, if that's what you really want to do, but be advised that you will no longer be covered for medical benefits". The possible variations on this scenario go on and on, the technology is readily available, and the temptation to create the linkages would be too compelling to ignore. Do you still think ID chips are a good idea? |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:01:53 -0700, Tim wrote: sounds to me like the old "chip-under-the-skin" deal. 1984? Yes, it's pretty easy to imagine something like that now that technology has evolved the way it has. Imagine that you now have the ID chip that everyone thought would be a good idea to reduce crime of all kinds, and also imagine that you are enrolled in the nationally funded health plan that everyone thought was such a good idea. The health plan knows *everything* about you of course. Suppose you are now sitting down to eat in a nice restaurant at an "on topic" marina, about to order their world class prime ribs. They've already scanned your chip at the door of course so that they know you won't be a criminal threat, and so you don't have to worry about carrying your credit cards. As you place your order, an alert comes up from the health plan telling you not to order the prime ribs because they are bad for your high cholesterol ( a function my wife presently performs). You press the over ride button because you're willing to take a calculated risk once in a while. Another message comes back and says: "Fine, if that's what you really want to do, but be advised that you will no longer be covered for medical benefits". The possible variations on this scenario go on and on, the technology is readily available, and the temptation to create the linkages would be too compelling to ignore. Do you still think ID chips are a good idea? I think they are good for other people, after all if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it. I have nothing to fear if they put them in other people. I don't want them in me because they have been linked to cancer in animals, but it doesn't bother me for them to be installed in other people, as long as it isn't my tax dollars or my insurance dollars paying for your cancer. Wait, on 2nd thought, they probably are going to charge me for the increase in medical costs. I changed my mind and don't think they are a good idea. ;) |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:33:55 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote: I think they are good for other people, after all if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it. I have nothing to fear if they put them in other people. I'm sure that is intended humoursly but think about the implications. Once the vast majority of the population has chips "because they had nothing to hide", anyone without a chip would become immediately suspect, sort of like someone without a drivers license is today. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:29:23 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
Do you still think ID chips are a good idea? Chips are old technology. Nano radios are the next thing. Everything a ID chip has to offer, and you get to listen in. Hell, I think a national ID card is a dangerous idea, let alone a chip, but I think this nano technology is pretty incredible. http://www.physorg.com/news6515.html |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Nov 1, 2:52?pm, wrote:
On 1 Nov 2007 12:43:23 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: On Nov 1, 9:21?am, wrote: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:00:24 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: On Nov 1, 7:35?am, wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:07:39 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: On Oct 31, 3:59?pm, wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:04:54 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: |Cite? | |You don't need one, Gene. No, you need one.... No, I really don't. Anyone with a functional mind and internet access can find this out for themselves if it disturbs them in some way. Gould lives on a diet of unsubstatiated PR releases. His post is nothing but FUD FACT: the USCG is AGAINST the idea of a federal boater ID document. EOD Fact is, you stated there was a written proposal and characterized certain statements in the proposal as emphatic. Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you climbed too far out on the limb and proceeded to saw it off at the trunk. The name calling and personal attacks are usually the first refuge of a guy who knows he has lost. Gene and I have pointed out where the USCG commandant, as recently as 10 months ago, was calling for a national boating license. The cite I provided quotes the head of BOAT/US concerned that the USCG is providing "conflicting information". If you have anything except pure speculation or hearsay to back up your position, please post it. Trust me, "trust me" just doesn't cut it these days. :-) Here ya go, asswipe. http://www.boatus.com/news/buoy11_07.htm Now shut the **** up- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Wouldn't it have been just as easy to post the link to this information a ways up the thread? Of course that would wasted some great opportunities for making derogatory personal comments and for posting profanity to the NG. People do gather in a newsgroup for a wide variety of reasons, don't they? Interesting item. BoatUS is reporting what they have been *told* the final recommendation will include. Still, I don't see the final WRITTEN proposal referred to up the line. You keep adding the word final. I'm not responsible for your mental weaknesses. I NEVER said final. You ranted on and on about something from 10 months ago, and refused to believe that things might have changed in all of that time. I guess that makes you something of a retard. You truly are a mindless slave to PR releases. And you were dead WRONG. Too small a man to admit it, aren't you? I believe I also told you to shut the **** up. Please do.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Repeating the same lie over and over again won't make it true. On October 31 you posted, in this thread, exactly: **** The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a drivers license or other similar ID. **** It appeared on my service just before noon. All of the comments about never claiming there was a WRITTEN proposal are just so much BS, aren't they? Keep expanding your vocabulary. You'll be amazed at how many intersting words you will find to use that have more than four letters. :-) ??? You are truly demented, Gouldy locks. Everything you have posted is the result of reading written proposals and comments. You just decided to capriciously attach the word FINAL to what I wrote. I read written proposals, which is how I knew you were full of your usual unmitigated ****. So, you now know you were clearly full of ****, but you still can't take responsibility for that. You are a wimp who lacks any sort of personal integrity. Keep trying to deflect. You aren't fooling anyone. If you are fooling yourself, then you are even less intelligent than I have speculated. You were toatlly worng on this issue, and I proved it. When do you grow a spine and admit it?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Nothing you posted or linked to referred to a written proposal by the USCG. You linked to some comments from BOATUS stating that they had been assured by the USCG that there would be no ID requirement. That's hardly the WRITTEN proposal by the USCG, is it? |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:33:55 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote: I think they are good for other people, after all if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it. I have nothing to fear if they put them in other people. I'm sure that is intended humoursly but think about the implications. Once the vast majority of the population has chips "because they had nothing to hide", anyone without a chip would become immediately suspect, sort of like someone without a drivers license is today. I didn't think it was to be intended humorously, I thought it was blatant tongue in check sarcasm. My bad. ;) |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Nov 5, 8:29?am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:01:53 -0700, Tim wrote: sounds to me like the old "chip-under-the-skin" deal. 1984? Yes, it's pretty easy to imagine something like that now that technology has evolved the way it has. Imagine that you now have the ID chip that everyone thought would be a good idea to reduce crime of all kinds, and also imagine that you are enrolled in the nationally funded health plan that everyone thought was such a good idea. The health plan knows *everything* about you of course. Suppose you are now sitting down to eat in a nice restaurant at an "on topic" marina, about to order their world class prime ribs. They've already scanned your chip at the door of course so that they know you won't be a criminal threat, and so you don't have to worry about carrying your credit cards. As you place your order, an alert comes up from the health plan telling you not to order the prime ribs because they are bad for your high cholesterol ( a function my wife presently performs). You press the over ride button because you're willing to take a calculated risk once in a while. Another message comes back and says: "Fine, if that's what you really want to do, but be advised that you will no longer be covered for medical benefits". The possible variations on this scenario go on and on, the technology is readily available, and the temptation to create the linkages would be too compelling to ignore. Do you still think ID chips are a good idea? That's not as far out as you think. Now that our purchases are routinely tracked in grocery stores, it's only a matter of time before some insurance company declares "Sorry, Mr. Policyholder. We're not going to pay for your angioplasty because we have evidence you have been buying a case of Twinkies every month for the last five years. Your health problems are the result of your own bad decisions, so you pay." |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:29?am, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:01:53 -0700, Tim wrote: sounds to me like the old "chip-under-the-skin" deal. 1984? Yes, it's pretty easy to imagine something like that now that technology has evolved the way it has. Imagine that you now have the ID chip that everyone thought would be a good idea to reduce crime of all kinds, and also imagine that you are enrolled in the nationally funded health plan that everyone thought was such a good idea. The health plan knows *everything* about you of course. Suppose you are now sitting down to eat in a nice restaurant at an "on topic" marina, about to order their world class prime ribs. They've already scanned your chip at the door of course so that they know you won't be a criminal threat, and so you don't have to worry about carrying your credit cards. As you place your order, an alert comes up from the health plan telling you not to order the prime ribs because they are bad for your high cholesterol ( a function my wife presently performs). You press the over ride button because you're willing to take a calculated risk once in a while. Another message comes back and says: "Fine, if that's what you really want to do, but be advised that you will no longer be covered for medical benefits". The possible variations on this scenario go on and on, the technology is readily available, and the temptation to create the linkages would be too compelling to ignore. Do you still think ID chips are a good idea? That's not as far out as you think. Now that our purchases are routinely tracked in grocery stores, it's only a matter of time before some insurance company declares "Sorry, Mr. Policyholder. We're not going to pay for your angioplasty because we have evidence you have been buying a case of Twinkies every month for the last five years. Your health problems are the result of your own bad decisions, so you pay." If they wanted to restrict their claims, it would be much easier to just to say "anyone who exceeds their ideal weight or cholesterol levels by more than X% will not longer be covered by their health insurance, since your health problems are the result of your own bad decisions, you now pay. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:47:36 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote: Yes, this whole movement scares me and should anybody that has ever read the book 1984. http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfid/ Absolutely. The book was mildly amusing when I read it as a kid back in the 50s or early 60s when we were still using vacuum tubes to perform most electronic functions, and the idea of a world wide communications network with universal connectivity would have been regarded as science fiction material. The social and political landscape has changed a great deal also, to the point where some of the concepts from "1984" are beginning to sound like a good idea to some folks. |
Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:29:23 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: Do you still think ID chips are a good idea? Ummm - yes? Tell you what - it saves a lot of time registering at the hospital. Scanner hits you at the door, wham, bam, thank you 'mam, do your thing and your out. Had a special blood test today which normally takes 30 minutes from the time I get there to the time I'm back out the door. Total elapsed time - 8 minutes and the only person I saw was the vampire. This afternoon, had to see the blood doc - in the door, see the doc, out the door in 30 minutes - some people where still registering. Can't beat it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com