Senator Blacklisted by No-Fly List

sig writes "Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) was turned down for a flight from Washington, D. C. to Boston because his name turned up on the TSA No-Fly list. He eventually got on a flight, but was again denied on his way back to D.C. It took 3 weeks of calls to Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security for the ordeal to get straightened out. But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?" There's also a New York Times story.

Comments

Our gov't at work

[AviLazar]

Maybe they need to re-evaluate themselves and their standards...(DUH!!!!).

Re:Our gov't at work

[YrWrstNtmr]

Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems.

Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs. That doesn't automatically mean they shouldn't be tried in the first place. Maybe, maybe not. But that is an entirely different question.

Re:Our gov't at work

[YouHaveSnail]

Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems.

Of course, but you typically do that before you put the system into production. If you can't run the implemented system in a test bed environment, then at the very least you put the system in place and instruct users not to rely on it, and you give them a quick way to report problems. Also, note that there's a big difference between mistakes made in the system and mistakes made by the system. The former may take a while to isolate and correct, but there should be a mechanism to fix the latter quickly.

Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs.

That's no excuse. If you have to put a system in place without thorough testing, you think long and hard about the kinds of problems it can cause, and you make damn sure you've got a fast and effective means of dealing with those problems.

Re:Our gov't at work

[gorbachev]

There is no bug here. It's broken by design.

Re:Our gov't at work

[InfiniteWisdom]

"As they should"???

This system is ostensibly a way of preventing terrorist attacks, not keeping "immoral" people off airplanes.

Re:Our gov't at work

[YrWrstNtmr]

Oh, I agree. How his name got there, and why it took so long for a prominent figure to get off is pretty damn bad. You and I would stand little chance.

Ok...here's a proposal. Every time we read about this stuff (checking ID's, No-Fly list, whatever) it's immediately bashed as unworkable, and an affront to our rights. And that may well be so.
How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better. Something that won't take decades to bring to fruition ("Don't be so mean to them and cause them to blow stuff up"). This is supposedly a smart group. Let's try to fix the process, instead of jumping up and down, screaming.

Re:Our gov't at work

[jedidiah]

The nature of the problem was rampant stupidity.

Anyone that's worked with security, databases or identity management should be well aware of the fact that certain key values occur in populations to the point of being meaningless. This is not simply a problem of testing but of ignoring key principles within a discipline as well as the past mistakes of others.

This situation is much more comparable Microsoft's policies regarding security.

Re:Our gov't at work

[The Conductor]

The answer is defense in depth. Screen for passengers for weapons, but realize that some will get through any realistic screening, so add layers that lengthen the odds. Investigate suspicious groups before they get to the airport. Put pressure on (or invade if you must) states that support these groups. Put on a bulletproof cockpit door to stop them if they do get on the plane; I would go further and give the cockpit an outside door, so it is inaccessible from the passenger cabin. Give the pilots (or, for that matter, properly qualified passengers) guns so they can fight back. Put remote control lockouts on the aircraft. Fit supertall buildings with anti-aircraft weapons (specially designed for short range so they don't get hijacked).

Granted, some of these things are being done, but the mindset is still one of looking for the perfect threat detection system, rather than one of minimizing risk for some given cost. We must accept that, whatever we do short of abandoning civilian aviation entirely, there will be a finite risk of hijackings. Any security measure must be judged by risk reduction vs cost, and compared to other, possibly less costly, measures to reduce risk.

Re:Our gov't at work

[Ryosen]

>>How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?

I'd probably take my head out of my ass and familiarize myself with the world around me. It's not as if Ted Kennedy is an obscure personality. It's not as though he hasn't been one of the most prominant figures in American politics for the past 42 years. And this happened in Washington D.C. and then again in his home state? How do you excuse that level of ignorance?

The fact that it took 3 weeks for one of the most powerful politicians in this country to get cleared off of the list, while sweetly ironic, doesn't hold much hope for the rest of us regular schlubs who might also run up against the same problem. I don't know about you but I certainly can't use the excuse that I'm a U.S. Senator to get through airport security. And while it might bring a small measure of comfort to know that the TSA is not making exceptions, it still smacks of the asinine overkill that followed 9/11 when they were scanning children, searching old women and making nursing mothers drink their own breastmilk.

Of course, using a pattern of "first initial, last name" is not exactly an accurate means of finding a match for terrorists, now, is it?

Re:Our gov't at work

[Dashing Leech]

The point is that the system didn't work like you "presume". Yes, it worked eventually. But "working" or "not working" is not a binary choice here. The speed at which it works is critical. It took 3 weeks for a senator with connections to get his name cleared. How long would it take a normal citizen.

A better way to implement this would have been to have a test period where the travellers are notified that they're flagged but not stop them from flying. Each flag is then investigate to see if it is a false positive, and how long it took to clear false positives. Only after this trial period, and fixing the bugs, should they actually stop people from flying.

Re:Our gov't at work

[JayJayEm]

Because in fact the 9-11 hijackers were already on various watch lists, which, had they been operated properly, combined with proper ID, might have prevented them from boarding the aircraft. It's ALWAYS going to be a good thing to know who someone really is from a security point of view.

Re:Our gov't at work

[harrkev]

Perhaps, but I still wonder why it should be necessary...

It is not WHO you are, but what you take on the plane with you. Even if Osama himself is on the plane, what is he going to do if he cannot even get his hands on a knitting needle?

You have to make a choice: Reduce your chance of dying by 0.000000000001% vs a 100% chance of loosing some liberties.

Re:Our gov't at work

[Lord Dimwit Flathead]

...asinine overkill that followed 9/11 when they were scanning children, searching old women and making nursing mothers drink their own breastmilk

The breastmilk-drinking bit was certainly asinine and a violation of the woman's rights. However, the refusal to exempt old women and children from searches was actually a good security decision. When certain classes of people are systematically excluded from searches, a smart attacker will exploit that exclusion to carry out his attack. Even if he can't recruit an old woman or a child to his cause directly, he probably can get one to carry something through the checkpoint for him, whether knowingly or not. An effective search campaign must include random target selection, preferably in combination with targeted selection based on risk factors.

That having been said, I agree with your main point, that Senator Kennedy's troubles with the no-fly list do not bode well for the average citizen who happens to find himself so listed.

Re:Our gov't at work

[iocat]

One of the big reasons they need to know who you are before you get on a plane -- the airline, not the TSA -- is so that if it crashes, they have an accurate list of who died. This prevents notifying the wrong people, etc. It's kind of morbid, but it makes a lot of sense.

One of the reasons the TSA checks IDs everyday is so that if there's ever a time when they need to be checking IDs to make it tougher for someone to travel under a false name, they don't have to suddenly invent the procedure.

Re:Our gov't at work

[hopethishelps]

How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?

I wouldn't do it at all. The whole concept of depriving people of the right to travel just because they are vaguely "suspected" of something stinks.

If the government wants to penalize somebody in such a major way, it should have to:

1. Tell that person what he/she is accused of
2. Give the person an opportunity to confront his/her accusers in court and rebut the evidence
3. Have a judge or jury consider the evidence in public

Most of us thought we had that right. Too many people seem willing to give it up, in return for an illusory feeling of "security". The chance of your being injured by a terrorist in the next year is considerably less than the chance of your being injured by a non-terrorist driving an automobile. There are risks in life, get used to it. Giving up essential liberties, which took centuries of struggle and sacrifice to get, just to possibly reduce some already-tiny risk, is irresponsible, short-sighted, and extremely stupid.

Re:Our gov't at work

[ElForesto]

If you can't run the implemented system in a test bed environment, then at the very least you put the system in place and instruct users not to rely on it, and you give them a quick way to report problems.

Tell that to the dot-com I used to work for.

Could it have been...

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this have been some backroom shenanigans to harass and intimidate an outspoken member of the opposition party? Lord, no, such a thing would never be done by politicians these days...

Re:Funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard buracratic process....
Make things very easy for criminals.

and
Damn near impossible for law abiding citizens.

See software copy protection, crippled cd's etc

least not forget MPAA, RIAA DMCA suck

Wonder what happens to Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon used the IRS to pester his foes. Now we've (er, they've) got the TSA to play with. It's lovely to see the advances that government has made.

Re:So what will it be folks?

[gtaluvit]

How does this make us open to hijackings? The terrorists from 9/11 had valid credentials. They went through a metal detector. The added security does nothing but placate the sheeple. Try flying sometime and you'll see how security is spotty at best. You don't have this kind of trouble in foreign airports that are BIGGER targets for this sort of thing. Think about that.

Re:Publicity Stunt

[slartibart]

I'd bet the majority of Americans would not recognize Ted Kennedy. And even if the counter employees recognized him, I doubt they would deviate from their normal procedure.

Re:So what will it be folks?

[pedestrian crossing]

or we learn to live with some inconvenience

You're kidding right?

This guy is a U.S. Senator. Not just that, but probably one of the most well-known senators (love him or hate him). This goes way beyond a little quirk in the system.

I highly doubt that the next attack is going to be the same as the last one, we need to focus on the unidentified threats, but instead we focus on implementing systems that get us used to losing our rights. Fuck it, the 9/11 terrorists actually accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing the way we think and act!

And when I speak of a system, I mean the end-to-end system, not the computer system.

Brainless bureaucracy

[mariox19]

Obviously the security people at airports are trained and no doubt encouraged by a litany of inflexible rules and consequences for those that don't follow them to the letter to simply "go by the book." What we wind up with is the mindless application of bureaucratic procedures by security drones. You couldn't convince me that we are all safer because of this.

It's not that politicians should receive special treatment; but it is ridiculous that one of the most recognizable men in American politics gets flagged by the computer and no one can do anything about it because no one dare stick his neck out for fear of being "flagged" for termination from his job.

On second thought though, with all the bullshit the average person has to put up with in every aspect of life that involves dealing with government agencies and their rules -- at least some of which I'm sure Senator Kennedy is responsible for -- I say hooray for inconveniencing the senator! Let's have more of this!

Re:Publicity Stunt

[IPFreely]

And it's unlikely that a clerk at an airline counter is going to check some list of banned passengers when a Senator that (s)he recognizes stops at the counter in front of her. She'll issue the ticket without a second thought, unless she were a complete imbecile.

No, that not true. Counter personel will always check ths list and follow the rules, and act based on those rules no matter who is in front of them. If a ticket agent ignored the list and the rules and let someone on the airplane, they would be roasted.

Security personel are always drilled that you follow procedure no matter who is standing in fornt of you. If you don't follow procedure, if you act based on their own initiative, then you take all responsibility for your actions. If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules and made the list. The agent is not responsible.

Vote.

[kryzx]

"But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?"

Vote.

Re:Vote.

[EvilNight]

Then you VOTE THEM THE FUCK OUT. This entire problem occurs because the voters in this country fall into two categories: Those who are foolish enough to think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, and 2) those who honestly think that there is no way to vote in a third party (or fourth, or fifth, or twelfth, but let's not go as far as France.)

The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:

Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.

Pure BULLSHIT. This lie serves one simple purpose: keep the two party corporate system in power. And people are stupid enough to believe this. Apparently nobody has ever taken the time to read up on how the voting system in this country actually works. They are content to mumble crap about the Electorial College and how futile it is to vote third party when in fact it is anything BUT futile. Just get them 5%, people. You get a third party a 5% share of the vote one time, and they can take care of themselves from that point on.

If you don't like the current candidates, vote for one of the candidates from the other 50 political parties in this country. Any 3rd party that gets in is going to have one agenda: CAMPAIGN REFORM. It's the only way for them to guarantee themselves a second term. Once those problems are fixed, this one party as two parties system is out the fucking door, and that's the best thing anyone could hope for in this country. It will put choice back into politics, and the rest will attend to itself.

If you won't vote, you are part of the problem. You live in this country, you CANNOT disclaim responsibility for political problems by refusing to exercise the only means you have by which to solve them. If everyone sitting around not voting got off their asses and voted 3rd party, they would OVERRULE all of the people voting R/D just by sheer numbers.

If you continue voting for the same two parties that keep running this country into the ground every single year, you are part of the problem. Republicans and Democrats care about one thing and one thing only: corporate payday. They are in the BUSINESS of selling laws to corporations with deep pockets. The only way to escape from this problem is to put more parties into the system to make it more resistant to corruption.

There is no mysterious savior that is going to appear and fix all of america's political problems. If the voters never wise up and take action, the erosion of freedoms at the expense of corporate interests is going to continue unabated, and someday the common people are going to be forced to take up arms and bring the government down the old fashioned way. If it goes far enough and the americans don't do anything about it, rest assured that someday the USA's foreign policy will tick off someone with the power to come in here and do it for us. You're fooling yourself if you think humanity has evolved to the point where another world war is not possible.

You are not an impartial observer. The mere fact that you draw breath on this planet obligates you. Try doing something that is becoming complete unamerican in modern times: take some responsibility and do something about the problems.

Re:Publicity Stunt

[theLOUDroom]

Sounds like Ted was staging a publicity stunt to me.

WHAT THE FUCK!!?

Seriously, where the hell do people get ideas like this. Obviouslyhe set himself up as a publicity stunt......oh wait.....HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THIS LIST. Yep, you're just another one of those fools who for some reason don't want to believe that the current administraion could EVER mess up even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Maybe you've had your head in the ground since 9/11 but this country has routinely been harassing and banning people from air travel based on the flimsiest correlation (it's not even real "evidence") with some list of characteristics that MIGHT make them a terrorist.

It's stupid, and un-american and it's only matter of time untill they harassed someone important.

Re:The slippery slope

[freak4u]

Found the quote I was looking for
"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet." --Lyle Myhr

Re:The slippery slope

[BoFo]

How about:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

- Ben Franklin

- or -

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

- Martin Niemöller

Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, sounds like something that they implemented back in the 1930s in Germany. I don't recall how exactly that separation tactic worked. I'm sure no one was hurt by it, only delayed in their travels.

You think it's just one guy?

[revscat]

It's just you. Seriously, one guy has problems because he ends up on the watch list on a prank or a fuck up and everyone starts whining that America is a police state and how their civil liberties have been taken away.

You really think it's just one guy, or even just a few? You are willfully ignorant then. This kind of shit has been going on since 9/11, and it has only gotten worse.

Screw justice, though, right? We have terrrists to catch!

Re:The slippery slope

[freak4u]

Agreed. People wonder how the holocaust happened, how communist Russia happened; wonder how people didn't see it starting. put on your glasses

Re:Ironic

[MarkPNeyer]

I love slashdot. Where else would you find wild anti-republican conspiracy theories considered insightful? Ohh... wait...

The whole situation in this country is just getting rediculous. Is it possible for people to believe that George W. Bush is a terrible politician, but a decent guy who just has a difference of opinion with you? I'm so sick of republicans acting as if they represent all of what's right and good in this country and claiming that the democrats represent immorality and stupidity. I'm also tired of the democrats acting as if all the republicans are either slaves to the corporate interests, and either evil crooks or else slobbering boobs who've been convinced to go along with the crooks. Jesus Christ ! Is it that unlikely that we just have differences of opinion? Is is that hard to beleive that Bush isn't trying to gather more power for himself for evil purposes - that he's just trying to keep us safe?

You can bitch all you want about Bush having said that he'd be a uniter and not a divider. Personally I think that's a stupid thing to say, but it's definately not as if Bush is intentionally trying piss off half the country. He's been being attacked since before he got into the office, with liberals saying he looked like a monkey, that he was stupid and talked funny and a religious zealot and incompetent. Are you at all surprised that this country is very divided, when half the people think their president is defeding them from evil, and the other half thinks the president looks/talks like a monkey?

I understand completely if you disagree with the president's policies, and you'd like to voice your opinion. I think there are plenty of valid disagreements you could make with the bush administration. The problem is that all I seem to hear is : "Ohhh that Bush - He's just evil! We invaded an innocent country all for oil and haliburton, after he stole the election in florida. And have you heard how talks all goofy?"

I can take criticism of the president - it's important and needs to be done. But not when the main critisim is that he's :

1) evil

2) incompetent

3) looks/talks like a monkey

If I beleived half of the critcisms being made of Bush, I'd be calling for armed revolution. The problem is that most of them just don't hold water at all. So he lied to us about iraq having WMD? What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD? Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD. Why the hell would you go into a country based on a total lie? That doesn't do anything at all to help him. You'd have to beleive (which i'm under the impression that a lot of liberals do these days) that bush has the intelligence of a four-year old and about as much morality as Adolf Hitler.

Can we please raise the level of political discourse in this country? I would love to argue about the military efficacy of invading Iraq. I'd love to debate the merits of McCain Fiengold. I'd love to talk about social security and whether it can or should be exteneded and fixed. It looks like all i've got to look at this election year is a man who is an evil, stupid, incompetent ape, or a man who was apparently in vietnam thirty years ago where, depending different sides of the story, was either a hero or a shmuck. Do you honestly think that if Kerry gets elected, this country will be 'unified' again? You're going to hear all sorts of outrages charges against him, too. Just you wait...

It's not about inconvienience: it's about justice

[revscat]

My point is that I was marginally inconvenienced, but it was not the end of the world. It cost me maybe 10 minutes of my life. How much of this is that Ted Kennedy doesn't like being treated like the masses?

Perhaps some. But perhaps some of it is that he has been made aware of how people are being treated, and doesn't like it. I don't either. Are you old enough to remember the Cold War at its height? It was the same kind of crap: band-aid measures typically undertaken out of a knee-jerk reaction to some scare, real or imagined, and it winds up doing little if any good. "Duck and cover", anyone?

Same thing here. America has gone batshit crazy over terrorism, and needs to settle down. Bringing attention to crap like this is good for us all.

Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li

[digerata]

About the racial comment, its not entirely true. I'm caucasian, wear normal clothes, and I've had to go through it 2 out of 5 flights since January.

Though it is the most frustrating thing to have happen to you. You entire privacy is completely violated and the process solves absolutely no problems.

The second time it happened to me in the Reno, Nevada airport (which is a freakin horrible airport) they lost my laptop and a $250 watch. How the hell do you do that?

Re:So what will it be folks?

[Watcher]

They went through a metal detector.

Here's the really obscene part, which comes from the 9/11 commission reports: in every flight, at least one (and in one case all four) of the highjackers on the flights set off the metal detectors. They were screened by security afterwards, and allowed to pass. We even have it on video. The sad truth from what happened on 9/11 is that we did't really need more security-we needed to make the security we already had functional. Of course, this is the country that passes new gun laws instead of enforcing the ones it already has, so why break with tradition?

Re:Ironic

[MntlChaos]

Unfortunately, I have little time to write an eloquent post as you did, so here goes.

You say that incompetence is not one of the things you can take people criticizing the President about. Incompetence is being unable to competently perform one's job. When that job is as important as President of the United States, incompetence is utterly unacceptable

Something I don't understand...

[An. (Coward)]

...is why a no-fly list even exists. I don't mean the list where you get pulled aside for extra scrutiny, but the one where they simply will not let you on the plane.

I'm not aware of anything in particular happening to these people, other than not being allowed to board. And I just don't understand the point of that. If the government considers you too dangerous to be allowed on a plane, then they ought to arrest you, charge you with some terror-related crime, and let a court determine your innocence or guilt.

Freedom to travel is a long-acknowledged right. If the government can't muster enough evidence on you to justify their actions against you, then they shouldn't be able to interfere with that right.

Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate

[BlewScreen]

I don't think the fact that he was put on the list was politically motivated - but I am wondering why it took three weeks to make the news...

Did he decide that he wouldn't tell anyone until the issue was resolved? Did the people in the airport not realize it was Ted? I'd have told everyone I know, and an airport usually has enought people in it that SOMEONE would have let a newspaper or TV station know... It happened FIVE times...

Further, wouldn't this have made a more favorable impact for the D's if the news came out during the DNC? Maybe they wanted to wait until people forgot about the DNC and started thinking about the RNC...

Or maybe it never really happened...

</tinfoil>

-bs

Re:Ms. Coulter?

[stratjakt]

Hell, Nixon put the entire "War on Drugs" we have today into motion, largely to punish the anti-war hippies who were driving him out of office.

Re:Ironic

[Theaetetus]

If I beleived half of the critcisms being made of Bush, I'd be calling for armed revolution. The problem is that most of them just don't hold water at all. So he lied to us about iraq having WMD? What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD? Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD.

Misleading point here... Russia, Germany, France, et al were calling for continued inspections searching for the WMD. Only Britain was at the similar conclusion... And Britain, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, et al. only came to that conclusion after Bush released his satellite pictures of trucks and other misleading or false information at the UN. Did Kerry lie? No. Did Clinton lie? No. Did Blair lie? I doubt it. Bush and his staff were the only ones privy to the inside information that he claimed "proved" that Iraq had WMDs. To claim the others, who were merely saying "yes, given the evidence you show us Mr. President, and given that we trust you and don't think you're a liar, we come to the same conclusion."

The conclusion later proved to be false, evidence later proved to be false (and falsified - see the 9/11 report) - therefore, the people who believed the falsified evidence are exonerated... and the ones who knew it was false are implicated.

-T

Re:Ironic

[intnsred]

So he lied to us about iraq having WMD?

What the hell, right? So what if ~1000 American kids are dead and 10,000+ are mangled. So what if tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and many more are mangled. So what if we jail Iraqi resistance fighters by the thousands and torture people routinely? What's the big deal? They're only people, right?! :-(

What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD?

I'd say Britain doesn't count; Blair is Bush's poodle and he was willing to do or say anything to curry favor with his masters.

As for Russia, Germany and "even France", they came to no such conclusion. They resisted the war, they refused to give the US the UN fig-leaf for its oil grab.

And to top it all off, for the months that UN inspectors were in Iraq before the war, searching everywhere the US told them to, they found no WMD!

There was only 1 government (and its poodle) who was bleating endlessly about Iraqi WMD. The US gov't.

Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD.

Because they were "briefed" on "secret" intelligence by the liars who wanted to go to war. They were told stories about how Iraq had pilotless drones and would mount them on ships and would attack the US mainland (all fiction), and many other fairy tales.

They were spineless, not daring to go against the gov't/media-generated war hype, and so they believed the lies that were fed to them. (But don't worry too much about them, they'll be "rewarded" with campaign donations from the corporate drones who were gleefully campaigning for war.)

Why the hell would you go into a country based on a total lie?

Well, the three most popular reasons are:

(1) To secure OIL, especially the huge reserves which were closed off to US oil companies and nationalized and used for Iraq's own benefit

(2) To eliminate one of Israel's enemies and generally weaken the Arab world

(3) To secure new US military bases (since the Saudis were kicking us out) in the Middle East

Can we please raise the level of political discourse in this country? I would love to argue about the military efficacy of invading Iraq. I'd love to debate the merits of McCain Fiengold.

In other words, you'd rather not talk about messy details.

Why talk about the sheer immorality and undemocratic methods used by a war-mongering administration to invade a country and kill thousands, and to rewrite its society turning it into a "free market" playtoy for American corporations, when instead we can talk about the "military efficacy" of our illegal invasion?

Why talk about corruption of politicians and corporations writing laws and the entire wholesale purchase of our two[sic]-party electoral system, when we can instead talk about the details of a law, McCain-Fiengold, which does not work, and which was written by two people steeped in the corruption of the system that they were trying to give a quick paint job to so as to prevent more systemic reform?

Re:What was the true inconvenience?

[stratjakt]

They don't have to tell you anything. The TSA is exempt from the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) which says that all government laws, rules and regulations are to be available to the public.

But, like I said, they snuck in a "notwithstanding article blah blah" clause into the TSA, so they just toss out any FOIA requests about the system or its rules.

Is there just one list? Several lists? Who knows.

The TSA's scope is potentially much bigger than just airports, too. Just wait until there are TSA patrol cars out on the highways, and you can be pulled over, searched and arrested on "secret" laws or rules.

Maybe it's illegal to drive a hybrid civic with a "defeat Bush in '04" sticker. Who knows. They could make a regulation making it illegal to be any blacker than Will Smith.

Sure, it violates your constitutional right to due process. That is, being able to read and understand the laws you're charged with violating, which some lawyers might argue is somewhat important to presenting a defense.

But hey, we're fighting terror.

So, let me get this straight

[Rogerborg]

1. Andy Anthrax uses the name Bobby Bomber as an alias and this name somehow makes it onto the No Fly List.
2. Andy turns up at the airport and claims to be Bobby.
3. The girl at the checkin desk says "I'm sorry, Mr Bomber, your name is on the secret no-fly list. You can wait and see a supervisor, or you can go home and choose another alias next time.".

The hell? All that happens is that Andy Anthrax finds out that he's on the list? So the next time he books a ticket, it will be as Barry Boxcutter.

Has anyone in the Department of Homeland 'Security' considered that this scheme is only going to stop innocent people who don't happen to have multiple identities? If we had any confidence in this list, then Senator Kennedy should have found armed agents waiting to take him down the moment he entered the airport. That this didn't happen just highlights that the whole no-fly list is a bad joke that's got way out of hand.

We need real security, not window dressing. And no, answering "National Security" in response to any criticism of the policy is not a substitute.

Re:Foreigners...

[TGK]

Damn it, why is it I only have mod points when we're discussing Star Wars and Babylon 5?

These points are well taken and should be observed by all /. readers. There is a xenophobic tendency in this country that is spiraling dangerously out of control. We are drawing lines between American Citizens and Foreigners (I capitalize this as it is rapidly becoming synonymous with "Gaijen" or "Barbarian"). Lest we forget, the overwhelming majority of American Citizens are decedents of immigrants.

As is penned in the Declaration of Independence "All Men are Created Equal." Moreover, as you point out, the Constitution grants only a very few and very specific rights to US citizens. I think voting is just about it. Freedom of speech, assembly, equal protection, all of these are guaranteed to any human being within the borders of the United States.

Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the President to suspend some of these rights in time of war. Unfortunately for Herr Bush, we are not at war. "What's this" you say? Not at war? What about the War on Terror? The Court has (thus far) only upheld these suspensions when the country is in a state of declared war. Bush has attempted to circumvent the Court's wrath by denying his victims the right to see a lawyer or even appear in court. Fills you with warm fuzzies doesn't it?

Enemy combatant or not, if you're being held by the United States you have the right to an attorney and your day in court. When Congress declares war and we are legally in such a state, then and only then might the rules change. Until then "we're living in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working
classes.... .... help help I'm being repressed!"

Big Difference

[Peaceful_Patriot]

The difference between George Washington and the crazy Islamists today is that G. Washington didn't have his friends in other countries blowing up buildings and killing innocent people far from the fighting. I don't rememember Thomas Jefferson saying it was ok to take the war to the civilians back in Britan or France or kidnap Britsh merchants and cut thier heads off as a 'message to others.'

You cannot make this comparison logically. The war we are fighing now is against people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life. It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.'

By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want is peace. Their entire political and social system is built on hate for the Israelis the and goal of destruction of the State of Israel.
There is something truely perverse about sending your children out to blow themselves up.
Good try, but nothing about this is like George Wahshington and his 'goons'.

Re:Big Difference

[Steve Franklin]

I do seem to recall something about issuing papers to privateers for the specific purpose of harrassing the British fleet. And I'm sure if George had had the opportunity he would have carried the war to Britain itself. Somehow, the Battle of Trenton doesn't impress me as a standard military operation. I mean, attacking the enemy on Christmas Day when they were drunk as a skunk? Is this your idea of the proper rules of engagement?

"You cannot make this comparison logically. The war we are fighing now is against people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life. It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.'"

You, Sir, have been watching too much Faux News. These guys couldn't care less about our way of life, except to the extent that it requires us to steal their oil to keep it operating.

Re:It's just as stupid ...

[Tassach]

It's just as stupid to believe that Bush deliberately targeted him for being a liberal democrat

Yeah, and it was just as stupid to believe that Nixon ordered his goons to break into the Democratic National Comittee's headquarters and steal documents. Oh wait, that REALLY HAPPENED.

You think that your St. George is any less likely than Nixon to abuse the power of the Presidency? I'll give you three guesses who Bush Sr's political mentor and patron was. Here's a hint: he came from Yorba Linda and had a dog named Checkers.

a good thing

[wardk]

it's a very good thing this is happening to those in power, especially someone as powerful as Senator Kennedy.

Only when idiot laws begin to affect those in power will something usually be done to correct it.

Maybe the Honorable Senator and John Gilmore can get together and work to getting TSA to be an organization that doesn't resemble authority from a Charlie Chaplin movie.

The Real Reasons For Iraq

[WombatControl]

I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but it's worth it.

I'm sick of all the outright lies about the war in Iraq coming from the anti-war left. It's disgusting. Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. Iraq was not Disneyland before the war. It was a totalitarian hellhole in which people were getting killed by the thousands. Talk to an Iraqi sometime. They will tell you stories about how on their sister's wedding night a drunk Uday Hussein showed up and decided to rape her death and slit the throat of the groom. These weren't isolated incidents, they happened every day.

What the hell, right? So what if ~1000 American kids are dead and 10,000+ are mangled. So what if tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and many more are mangled. So what if we jail Iraqi resistance fighters by the thousands and torture people routinely? What's the big deal? They're only people, right?! :-(

Only 6,000 have been "wounded" and only a fraction of those are serious wounds. Saying that 10,000+ were "mangled" is an outright lie. Let's take the highest number of wartime civilian casualties in Iraq: right around 12,000. Let's take the lowest figure for the number of Iraqis killed each year by Saddam Hussein: 24,000. That's at least 12,000 lives saved in Iraq, and that figure is likely too low by at least half. If you're going to talk about the morality of war, don't gloss over the costs of inaction.

I'd say Britain doesn't count; Blair is Bush's poodle and he was willing to do or say anything to curry favor with his masters.

Nice ad hominem attack, but have you ever considered that maybe MI6 has better intelligence than we do and believed that Hussein was a threat. Have you ever tried reading the Butler Report that said that there was no evidence of politicization of British Intelligence? I'd guess no, because that would challenge your worldview. This kind of leftist cant is both prima facie ridiculous, but it crowds out legitimate criticism of the war by those who don't get their rocks off by reading Chomsky. If you're going to increase intelligent public discourse, calling someone a "poodle" for having an informed opinion that you don't like is not the way to go about it.

You have no right to correct your data...

[geekotourist]

From This March 2003 Slashdot article: the government has no responsibility or requirement (and thus no incentive) to have correct data or to be corrected. Ted Kennedy gets a rare exception because he's not only famous but powerful. You and I have no chance. Just ask the 5,500 David Nelsons.

And whatever they claim otherwise, they're still getting data from credit reports and the like. So say you're one of the hundreds of thousands of identity theft victims. With ID theft you have rights, and the credit reporting agencies responsibilities, to attempt to fix bad data. Takes 200 hours of your time and never, ever really finishes, but all you lose is your potential new job and potential new car loan.

But in the meantime the bad data gets into the gov't files: now you never can fix it. And your taint creeps out to touch all your associates (like how the casino software catches ex-roommates of ex-roommates of card counters). Now not only do you not get hired after the NCIC screen in the background check, but your buddies and grandparents all get extra airport searches (they should add a nurse they way they do some of those searches... add in a breast or testicular cancer lump screen while you're there). And of course as 1 in 2500 of us is a terrorist any close check of you will find those suspicious degrees of separation in your Orkut links. Hi Mr.Tuttle, your new name is Toast.

From my favorite precient and well-written essay on privacy losses:

"But there also will be tangible, specific harm.

The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life...

"If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm.

"Worse yet, we may never know what negative assumptions or judgments have been made about us in state files... Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight.

" That possibility alone will, over time, make us increasingly think twice about what we do, where we go, with whom we associate, because we will learn to be concerned about how it might look to the ubiquitous watchers of the state..."

"The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society..."

If these errors were merely harmful to the innocent, that would simply be horribly injust and an affront to the ideals of the US. But these errors are also stupidly harmful to safety. From Schneier (via my D.Nelson post)... "almost everyone who fits the profile will turn out to be a false alarm. This not only wastes investigative resources that might be better spent elsewhere, but it causes grave harm to those innocents who fit the profile..."

Watch lists REDUCE security vs random checks

[Ungrounded Lightning]

It's ALWAYS going to be a good thing to know who someone really is from a security point of view.

Not true. In addition to impeeding ordinary travelers (thus doing damage FOR the terrorists), it's an innefective waste of resources that could otherwise be used to do something useful.

Such as random searches.

A watch list means anybody on the watch list is harrassed, and KNOWS it, while anybody NOT on the list passes through. This means that the terrorists can do a dry run and find out which of them are not on the list and pass through unhampered. Then the ones that succeed get togther and do the REAL hijacking - with no problems.

And the terrorists already knew this. They did dry runs immediately before the 9/11 event.

Had the resources been used instead for random checks, being passed through without search once would give no improvement whatsoever on the probability of being searched on the next trip. Mixes of the two are progressively less effective as the fraction of random searches goes down and watchlist searches goes up. (There was a recent paper on this published, and referenced here on slashdot.)

Meanwhile, having a watch list means having a government black list, selecting out a subset of the population for systematic penalization and harrassment. That's already unconstitutional, in the absense of individiualized evidence of wrongdoing and legal action to determine guilt, under the equal protection clause. But doubly so when it can be shown that a watchlist is not effective for its stated purpose, so no pressing government interest is served.

And of course there's the issue of harassment of additional people improperly put on the list - with T. Kennedy as the poster child.