Slashdot Mirror
TSA Lied About Protecting Passenger Data
wk633 writes "A report by Homeland Security Department Acting Inspector General Richard Skinner, said the agency misinformed individuals, the press and Congress in 2003 and 2004. It stopped short of saying TSA lied.
Bruce Schneier does say 'the TSA lied' on his blog." Scary stuff, and yet it's even scarier how little the general public has caught on.
The general public never catches on, it's normal.
That's what's really scary.
Nevertheless, most of the transfers that we reviewed were executed between parties bound by agreements forbidding additional sharing or disclosure of the passenger information. Of the more than 12 million records transferred, a passenger's data was inappropriately disclosed to the public in only one instance. In this instance, a government contractor's inappropriate disclosure of information was inadvertent.
So, because it was a government contractor and not the government itself I should be fine with the one slip up because the contractor just didn't have the proper amount of care necessary to carry out the task with the proper amount of security necessary?
Let me guess, the person who's information was divulged has little or no option of recourse against the contractor. Of course this report doesn't say anything about that. Will the contractor be used again? Why wasn't the contractor listed in the report so that everyone knows who they are. After all, they leaked someone's private info, I think the public should at least know that they shouldn't be dealt with at any time.
TSA's policy environment with respect to privacy has changed substantially since its inception. From its inception, TSA recognized personal privacy and confidentiality as important concerns. Especially in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, finding a balance between these concerns and transportation and aviation security was a difficult challenge.
There is no need for a balance. Regardless of the emergency state of the nation people's privacy should not take a back seat. We all know Ben Franklin's comment and it rings true here.
Regardless of passenger data sharing, lists of known problem individuals, etc, people are going to get on that plane and cause problems (whether directly or indirectly). We are always a step behind and trying to close holes that were used in the past. The terrorists will always find some hole we haven't closed because they haven't used it before.
Our weak attempts at ending terrorism do nothing but erode our freedoms and that's exactly what they want to have happen. Way to go!
Scary stuff, and yet it's evem scarier how little the general public has caught on.
They have caught on to what they were told to. They seriously believe that they are now safer that their privacy has been eroded. They are dazzled with big numbers and small reported incident numbers (i.e. how many people were affected by the Patriot Act).
People want to be told what to think. They want to be told they are safe and they will seriously believe they are. People who think otherwise are labeled "paranoid" and not worthy of belief. Only those that continually fill the heads of their citizens with spin are worthy of listening to. Who are we kidding? How is the public supposed to "catch on" when they are bombarded by government sponsored propaganda centered around the positive influence the TSA has had on airline safety? If we watched network-sponsored TV news we might have had a different view on the whole situation right? The government propaganda pieces looked and sounded quite legit as they were meant to. So the people that don't rely on personal research and news from multiple outlets really did believe the TSA was doing things in their best interests.
What I believe is scary is that people just shrug it off and say, "all administrations do these things." Perhaps, but this one was caught and you still don't care.
Is it really that hard to write out the name of the Acronyms at least once?
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Lied about Protecting Passenger Data. Then you can talk about the TSA until you blue in the face. Is the BSA the Business Software Alliance or the Boy Scouts of America?
Sure we work with computer all the time and take Acronyms all the time and many are very complex.. CPU, RAM, ROM, GNU, etc... It is fine when you are talking about computer stuff. But when you start moving to government Acronyms or Business Acronyms, we should get a better description. Is PSC Play Station Console, Public Service Commission, or Pubic Safety Control? Please think before you start using acronyms especially in less geeky topics such as business, law, politics, governments, and non astronomy sciences. Even if it is geeky related if there is a change that a lot of people wont know what you mean please spell it out.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
yet another thing your typical slashdotter doesn't get. The general public DOESN'T CARE!! The TSA is doing 'a good thing', they are protecting us from all those nasty terrorists, and if you have a problem with what they are doing, what are you trying to hide?
What's "evem" more scarier is the Slashdot spell checker.
Honestly? The TSA is a bureacratic mess, they can levee fines against anyone they deam fit for any reason they see fit and don't even have to tell you why. You can't complain, you can't do anything about it. Yet, it is all done for your "safety."
Pardon me for not knowing, but TSA is mentioned many times in the article write-up and isn't once explained.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
So, the DHS Office of the Inspector General says in its own report that the TSA "misled" people about protecting passenger data, which is essentially saying they lied, we'll lambast them for not specifically saying "lied" and rally around a blogger (I don't care who it is) just because they use the word "lied"?
I don't get it.
No fucking way... I can't believe it.. the government would never lie...
Conclusions:
"Although we found no evidence of harm to individual privacy, TSA could have taken more steps to protect privacy. TSA did not consistently apply privacy protections in the course of its involvement in airline passenger data transfers. This inconsistency pertained to TSA's efforts in acquisitions, contract enforcement, and internal practice."
So no evidence was leaked but they could've done a better job.
And really...if someone lies, is this really newsworthy?
It is if it's not posted in the Politics section.
Even scarier is how the original poster thinks the general public can catch on to anything. This is the country where we need to put car seat instructions in 5th grade english so parents can understand them.
Imagine, the TSA lied. Who would have guessed?
OK. Cue the apologists. I can't wait to hear why it wasn't "really" a lie or, better yet, why we are better off because they lied. This aught to be nauseating.
From one of the AP articles Shcneier linked to:
"However, the report concluded, in only one case was a passenger's data inappropriately revealed to the public."
Once is once too many - but they try to make 'only once' look like a *good* thing.
Aero News Net (ANN), a great daily news site for aviation, has been covering this as well.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
~Lake
We examined information related to TSA's role in fourteen transfers of airline passenger data.9 In two cases, these transfers did not result in any data review or analysis on the part of the recipients. Collectively, the remaining transfers involved more than 12 million records associated with passengers traveling on at least six air carriers.... And this is just sample data!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: as far as the US Government is concerned, especially since 9/11 and The Patriot Act, citizens have no expectation of privacy. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. People keep saying, "Oh, the government will never lie to me. They are required to protect privacy." As if. The government will tell you what you want to hear to passify you, and when found out will either flush things down the Memory Hole or give you a nice 'mea culpa' and continue doing the same thing.
As far back as 1995 Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy wrote in The Right To Privacy that our rights, especially those under the Fourth Ammendment, were slowly being eroded.
But as another poster said, the bulk of the American population don't know, and more importantly, don't care.
I personally spoke with a large software firm about this very issue -- how can such a system keep the false positives low to nill while catching the ocassional needle or two in a very large haystack, and they waffled on the question. Considering the number of terrorists are extremely small with regards the rest of the population, how can you possible have enough data to be statistically significant? Again, they waffled on the question, giving a half-baked "executive response" rather than anything concrete.
The real truth is we are far more likely to die in a car crash than to die at the hands of a would-be terrorist. Yet, billions are being poured into Homeland Insecurity and the TSA efforts, and what do we have? High false positive rates, millions of needlessly harrased travelers, and it's hard to get a fix on the false negative rates since terrorists are so rare to begin with.
In short, the entire approach makes no sense.
But try explaining this to the general public, who tend to be dumb as boards when it comes to basic statistics and probabality.
90% of the public is simply unable to think, but merely jumps from one belief pattern to another. That my friends is the problem.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
My big question: how can it do any good to train an expert system to recognize terrorists, when all the sample data is by definition from non-terrorists? I mean, there were no terrorist actions on any Jet Blue flights in that time frame. This data is useful as "known negatives" in the test for terrorists, but where do they get the data for "known positives" to train the system?
The point is that the DHS's own internal investigative processes found that the TSA was inaccurately representing its claims and misleading the public and others about its claims about protecting passenger data, and then releases exactly that finding in a public report that it then makes available for all to see.
In other words, exactly how we'd hope the process of oversight to work, and probably the most desirable outcome, other than the TSA's missteps not happening in the first place.
But instead of examining the implications of the TSA's mistakes, whether intentional or no, and being at least marginally pleased that the DHS's own Inpsector General's Office was the entity that uncovered the impropriety and then published it in a standard public report, we'll focus on minutiae like the TSA not specifically saying that it "LIED", using that exact word, and then further focus on a blogger who, ostensibly heroically and self-righteously, will use the word "lied", because apparently, a blogger's interpretation of the appropriate semantics for a government report is more important than the report itself.
And then, on top of that, editorialization calling it "scary" when it's free available to every citizen of the United States as a public report. I suppose every mainstream news outlet should be screaming "TSA LIED, PEOPLE DIED" as its headline in order for people to be satisfied?
Does that make a point?
I worked for the TSA for over a year and a half. I was a god-damned screener -- I was checking passengers and baggage both. I have little respect for most of the other screeners and for the management. (Did you know the hiring process was little more than "first-come-first-served" and that people were hired before background checks were complete? They didn't even check resumes much of the time! People were placed in management roles at the age of 18! Their last job at a burger joint! This is a no-shitter!) But enough of that. The TSA is also filled with a lot of well-meaning people who really want to do a good job. But I have yet to detect deceit in any of the people I have encountered regardless of how high in rank. I am honestly shocked.
...they would never lie about that.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Well, I think it is on his resume actually.
"I am participating in a working group to help evaluate the effectiveness and privacy implications of the TSA's Secure Flight program."
You mean to tell me there's government agencies that actually lie to us? Weird.
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
I think things like the TSA are Osama's greatest victory over the US. What better way to destroy a free republic with much greater strength in arms but to dismantle its own liberty from within? Make the people afraid, knowing that their leaders will erode rights and freedoms all in the name of security.
Hmmm, let's have a peek at the number ONE result on Google, shall we?
Yep, that was difficult.
Is PSC Play Station Console, Public Service Commission, or Pubic Safety Control?
You can't tell from the story's context?
One of the major instruments of the ruling political class is to divide and distract public opinion with intense moral-laden debate about subjects that in most other countries are treated as private matters.
Morality-driven debate is such a powerful tool because you can, by fine-tuning the argument, get a balanced 50-50 split on just about any subject.
And so, we get the endless debates about gay weddings, about living wills, about abortion, about the "theory" of evolution, about the role of religion in public structures, and so on.
Meanwhile debate about subjects that in any open democracy would make the front pages, would bring millions onto the streets, and would topple presidents... almost totally absent.
The general public does not debate the role of the state, the yawning chasms in the democratic process, the boom in military spending, gerrymandering, government-sponsored TV "news", political prisoners, torture, the corruption of every agency meant to protect the public, the environment, the economy into an agency designed to exploit and abuse...
Give the plebians bread, and circuses, and you can pretty much do what you like.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
The public does not catch on, because it does not want to know. They wrap every little problem with euphemism and hope for the best. Hence the patriot act II and beyond.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Is Slashdot vouching for the fact that the TSA lied? One investigation says it didn't, and one individual says it did.
The investigation said that the TSA claimed to have privacy precautions in place when, in fact, it didn't.
Even if the investigation didn't use the word -- how is that not lying?
The general public doesn't want a democracy. It wants a group of people to solve all their problems. Protects us from these bad men. Give us free food because I don't want to work. Keep my comunity safe from drugs.
The government doesn't want a democracy. It wants a group of people to let them decide everything. To take their protection from percieved threats. To give them tax money because they don't want to work. To keep comunities safe from drugs so people will work and pay taxes.
The truth is usually quite simple. Real governments exists to serve themselves as much as the people.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Beside, Congress members don't not even read the bills they pass, why should they read letters?
THIS IS A RANT. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
What the fuck is all this rhetoric about "the general public" not realizing their rights are being trampled and billions of their dollars are being wasted on the TSA?
Who the fuck are you, and what are you doing about it? YOU are the general public, assholes. All you are doing is whining on Slashdot about how goddamned smart you are compared to everyone else because _you_ really know how inept the TSA is, and no one else is clever enough to figure this out.
WTF?? Put up or shut up. Do something about the problem, or simply shut the fuck up.
This is just bullshit from people who aren't doing a damn thing except following the herd to slaughter while marching meekly to their deaths, self-righteously proclaiming their outrage louder than the next.
Well, folks, when the guys with funny helmets turn up at the gates on their little horses and the government turns out to have done a runner, don't say you weren't warned.
Oh, actually it just turns out that a government agency was doing what government agencies do all the time. I apologise for the wild exaggeration. So now please put down the Taser and let me get on the goddam airplane.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
While we're on the subject of that, why do they not let nail clippers through security, but let you take glass bottles on to the plane?
So of course heads are going to roll over this, right? TSA will be fined and people will get fired or even brought to court over this, right?
Oh, sorry, i spaced out there for a second. I'm back to the real world now. Of course noone will be punished for this.
Failing to learn from history dooms you to repeat it.
I'm not saying Osama hates us for our freedom. I am saying that he is using the most effective technique for weakening our country being that he cannot defeat us with military might. His motivations are immaterial to the point I'm trying to get across, please don't pollute it with your politics.
There is a difference between lying and saying something that isn't true. Lying requires intention. I don't know if thats the case here, but it is possible. If the person that said that the precautions were in place honestly thought that they were in place he wasn't lying. However, if he knew that precauations were not in place, but said that they were regardless, he was lying.
Until the information is used in an ID theft scam because the TSA didn't protect the data. Then it impacts you even if you don't look suspicious. That's what this is about, the protection of the data, and the fact they arn't protecting it.
The lie being that if the US government spend loads of money on checking on people who come into the country by air, this will have any effect on terrorists at all? As I see it, the known terrorists would all be planners, the operatives aren't expected to last long anyway (life expectancy as a human bomb is not good). So, unless you have some way to identify a person, who has never been heard of before, as a fanatic, you have no hope of catching anybody this way. Even then, terror operations can take weeks or months to plan and execute, whats to stop them from coming in via Mexico for example? So if the people involved in it lie, are you surprised?
I might not be a wit, but at least I am more than half way there.
If the US was a totalitarian dictatorship that [yadda yadda yadda]
Your attempted use of the subjunctive mood was flawed both in its intent and its execution.
The number is entirely made up, it was an example. However, this government DOES quantify the terror risk, which is why we are stuck with the DHS terror warning system. Even if we could not quantify it at all, that doesn't mean we shouldn't spend any money on prevention.
You also suggest that if we fight terrorism we can't do anything else. Ideally we would spend as much to prevent automobile accidents and cigarettes as it would cost us to not do anything. The main problem here is that each politician is doing on a cost/benefit analysis on their salary vs lobbying dollars. If they can bring in $1 million in funds from corporate donors and spend $750k on PR to prevent people from hating them for selling out rights to business interests, then the politician will take it. This is why cigarettes are still legal and the average fuel efficiency of vehicles hasn't risen since the Model T.
Makes you wonder what the big lies really are.
Pretty sad when you can't trust your own government. Candor has been lacking in government as long as we've been writing things down, but this administration seems to have a difficult time with the truth. They're spending a whole lot of our money trying to package reality for us.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
President Bush has been running a huge fraud. The ultimate opportunist, he exploited the 2001 planebombings to invade the totally unrelated country of Iraq, though now selling F15s to our "allies" in Pakistan, whose intelligence agency backed Qaeda's takeover of Afghanistan, while distributing stolen nuke tech to Libya, N. Korea, and Iran. He has been running a vast police state that tortures and kills people rounded up on circumstantial suspicion, holding them for years without even charging them or any due process, without producing any results. He's produced gigantic laws based on known lies and elaborate fictions, from the false Saddam/Osama connection through the need for violating Americans' Constitutional rights to capture Osama - where is he? Lying about WMDs to terrorize Americans and Congress into invading, his dereliction of security has bred an actual armed threat in a postapocalyptic state in Iraq, as former conventional military bases are looted by a predictabel international convention of the usual bad guys.
I'm old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Bush has lied about a war that has killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of our allies, and gets worse every day - counter to all their lies about brevity and local support. If ever there were a "high crime and misdemeanor", it's sending us to a disastrous war on a series of lies. Where are the Republican cries for presidential "dignity" and "integrity"? Let's impeach this monster immediately, for treason. Before he does any more irreparable damage.
--
make install -not war
>The real truth is we are far more likely to die in a car crash than to die at the hands of a would-be terrorist. Yet, billions are being poured into Homeland Insecurity and the TSA efforts, and what do we have? High false positive rates, millions of needlessly harrased travelers, and it's hard to get a fix on the false negative rates since terrorists are so rare to begin with.
More people in the United States were killed in traffic accidents in September 2001 than were killed in terrorist attacks in the same month. That is also true of August 2001, October 2001, and all subsequent months. The difference is that the figures for terrorism deaths in all of thase other months is zero. (2001 deaths =42,900)The thing stopping airliner takeovers is the passengers willingness to take on the terrorists as in the Pennsylvania hijacking. TSA is there to comfort the rubes who fly once every five years. It also provides jobs for those who can't hack it at McDonald's.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Well, you can be certain that that policy will
not be allowed to continue - thanks for pointing
that out to the TSA.
In the past, the TSA has allowed passengers to
carry butane lighters on-board planes, as well
as books of matches. Someone pointed out that
if the British "shoe-bomber" had had the number
of butane lighters allowed, that plane would
never have made it across the Atlantic Ocean.
That policy has been changed.
The Dubya regime has been far too busy trying to
convince the public that they are more secure now,
rather than doing what it really takes to do so.
No doubt, the TSA has a plan drawn up for air
passengers to disrobe and don paper hospital gowns
and slippers, just for added "security". All this
while air cargo goes largely unchecked, seaports
go largely unchecked, borders remain porous, and
none of the airport ground crews pass through the
same security measures as the passengers.
I am not impressed by the PR campaign that passes
for genuine security improvements. It's called
"feel good" politics, and it little more than a
soap bubble in the wind. But when the terrorists
do strike again, the current regime will claim
that they have done everything in their power
to avert the disaster. (NOT!)
Why not? The airlines lied to us, too, promising in their privacy policies that our travel data was confidential. Instead, they handed over all kinds of personal info in violation, for a government system test. Who knows how much private identity data, delivered to the airlines under a confidentiality contract, was given to how many extra third parties. Or how much of that identity data will be used to steal from us. When the tarfile gets into the mafia's fraud machines, I hope we get a wave of lawsuits holding the airlines and the TSA liable. That will teach them - and their insurance companies who enable them. I note that Mussolini said "fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power".
--
make install -not war
The only thing you are wrong about is the idea that Reagan had empathy for anyone at all. He was a McCarthyist red-baiter and a career opportunist that said all the right things, just like Bush does.
Government. Where do you want to go today?
Look at page 3 of the report. Oh look! A list of abbreviations and their meanings!
You've probably beenlooking at Page 3 of The Sun.
"90% of the public is simply unable to think, but merely jumps from one belief pattern to another. That my friends is the problem."
This is the answer to a lot of the world's (and the US in particular's) problems. It comes up a lot on slashdot too. I have to challenge this in the one sensible way. It's not that the public is unable, very very few are unable to think deductively, it's that they are unwilling. This is a far harder problem to overcome. The first can mostly be solved by eductation, the latter requires a social solution. We can't agree on anything socially anymore, so good luck.
What really needs to be addressed is the fact that people would rather be shot dead than proven wrong. When they are proven wrong, the person responsible is often hated and touted as "belligerent."
Sad. Sad.
-- I have fans? Wow.
If the person that said that the precautions were in place honestly thought that they were in place he wasn't lying.
You're speaking as to whether an individual member of the organization lied. What's at question, however, is whether the organization itself lied.
If a company spokesperson is given incorrect information, believes that information to be the truth, and proceeds to provide it to the public, the spokesperson may not be lying -- but the company still is.
In order for a government to make the common man depend on it, it needs to give the common man an arch enemy. It used to be the Kaiser, communists, drug dealers, and now it's terrorists.
When the common man doesn't have an absolute enemy to fear, he'll tend not to depend on the government as much. Of course this isn't in the lawmakers best interest.
Keep your dependents living in fear and they'll always remain your dependents.
"While we're on the subject of that, why do they not let nail clippers through security"
Nail clippers are allowed, even those with nail files.
"but let you take glass bottles on to the plane?"
Do you believe there should be such a restriction? Talk to your Congressman, not us.
Long before the current scenario, I got in trouble for the empty grenade that I kept in my tool bag. It falls under "realistic replicas of incendiary devices" and is not allowed. It was unfortunate, since the grenade was always the first tool to come out of my bag...
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
People like to fool themselves into thinking that blogging is a form of activism. Newsflash: blogging is about as effective a political tool as backyard gossip. People who disagree with you won't be reading this thread. You're only preaching to the converted, and then patting yourself on the back telling yourself you did some good.
Knowing is half the battle, but it's only half of it. The other half is doing something about it. We spend so much of our time writing obfuscated C, inventing a more clever graphics algorythm, or coming up with the perfect clever reply on a blog when we could be writing open-source voting software, designing maintenance-free water distribution systems, and making information available to the 55% of the country whose bullet-proof point of view never reaches the hallowed pages of Slashdot.
It's a fatal mistake to think that the information has gone far enough once it reaches you. It's even worse to think that it's someone else who should do something about it.
Mod me down if you must, in the real world my karma is clean.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
I have an obviously foreign name, and my luggage was searched two in a row for the last two times that I travelled. They put in a "notice of baggage inspection" slip in my bag. Now, the fact that they were searched wasn't a problem. The problem is that last August, they (1) delayed one luggage for a more thorough search, and (2) when I finally got my luggage, my $300 minidisc player/recorder was missing. The minidisc player was kept in a soft pouch; the pouch was stored inside a hand bag, which sit inside the luggage. They apparently opened the hand bag, pulled out the contents, found the minidisc player/recorder and found it convenient to transfer it to the inspector's own pocket.
..."
Now, I tried to contact TSA and it wasn't helpful. The phone number they provided, (866) 289-9673, always responded with a busy tone. I e-mailed the airline, United Airlines, and they never got back to me. Maybe I was too cynical. I told them I don't think an innocuous little device like my minidisc player is a threat to airline safety.
But it is funny if you think about it. TSA steals my stuff and put a slip saying "we did it." Then the fact that there is no where to complain is like them saying to me, "nanner nanner nanner
I once had a signature.
Their government to tell them THE TRUTH?!?!?
I wanna know who's actually THAT gullible! I have a few bridges to sell them and some potions that'll guarantee them immortality, infinite sexual prowess, and make them a magnet for the most attractive specimens of the opposite sex extant!
Jesus H. Fuck people! If the government actually told us the truth about this stuff, they'd be slapped back into a corner and most of their ability to act with reckless impunity stripped from them!
I know this. YOU know this. And what's more, THE GOVERNMENT TYPES KNOW IT! Why the fuck do you think they lie to us in the first place?
"Yeah, we're funding terrorist cells and training camps."
"Yeah, we're assassinating foreign leaders who're a pain in the ass to our foreign policy."
"Yeah, we're making politically inconvenient individuals/citizens disappear."
Now feels my +Infinity Cluebat!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
it was just released yesterday that FOIA requests have released official documents showing the Saudis were shipped out of the USA when noone else could fly right after 9/11 by the FBI.
...
Sigh, don't you hate it when the conspiracy theorists are right
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
He used the phrase "risk matrix", what more do you want?
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Can't you just picture it? He's there shovelling chips into the fryers in Burger King, or sitting behind the refunds desk in PC World, with his beard and his "Hello My Name Is Osama" badge, and everyone says "Hahaha, you look *just like* Osama bin Laden, too" and he laughs and pretends like he's never heard that joke before, and gobs in their coffee or charges them a double restocking fee.
Anyway, something like 90% of physical security has a computer security analogy. In other words, if you are a computer security expert, you know 90% of physical security, and can see if it's good or bad, or at least if it's bad in certain ways.
That last 10% could kill him if he was building a physical security systems, because, for example, he probably doesn't know what you should make a bank vault floor out of. (Of course, he probably knows he should be using something specific and knows he doesn't know what it is.) But he's perfectly able to see failures of security in the other 90%, because they would be failures in computer security also.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
What about pencils, coat-hangers, car keys, hair-spray (great blowtorch!), electrical cords,
briefcase straps, bowling balls, teeth, and fingernails?
The important thing is to figure out what they're lying about.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I'm not addressing the issue of whether it is or is not lieing. I'm addressing the issue of Slashdot stating in a headline that the TSA, did, in fact, lie. The opinions or rationalizations of the Slashdot employee should not be reflected in their headlines. Before Slashdot says the TSA lied, Slashdot needs to produce some evidence that supports that. Since Bruce Schneir is the only source SLashdot used that claimed the TSA lied, professionals with a degree of integrity would have written a headline something like this: "Schneier Disputes IG Report on TSA 'Lieing'"
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
But who the fuck in their right mind cares. All politicians lie, that's what they do. Are they expected to spill out their real intentions at high-level meetings ? To answer questions about what CIA does in their country ?
The pres is not Jesus, why is everyone surprised the "he lied to us ?". He didn't lie about legislation or about what he's going to do with the country. He lied about his private life which EVERYONE does at some point, so none of that "he lied once, he can't be trusted" bullshit.
That's exactly what was said in one of the first comments. The sheep are blinded with "moral dillemas" so the real stuff can go through unchecked.
All very true. Actually he is an expert on Security "Systems" both physical and electonic, has written many books on the subject and is pretty much considered an industry expert.
He has become in expert in all areas because he realizes that they are not seperated as people think. For instance, if a physical safe holds the root passwords for the network, than that impacts network security, and if the network holds the combination for the physical safe that impacts physical security.
In fact his monthly newsletter discusses all of these aspects, physical and electronic, and consults iin both areas. He was invited to join the working group, which says something about his credentials.
To paraphrase him, Security is a mentality, whether elctronic or physical. It's not as much what you have as how you impliment it.
And you can make a knife using metal epoxy and a piece of posterboard. Fold the posterboard in half, pour in the epoxy, hold two minutes (presumably in the restroom), boom, knife. Hopefully not epoxied to your hand. Alternately, use the folds of one of those innumerable pamplets they have at the airport.
Granted, it has a non-straight blade and no handle, but is very sharp, and you could certainly hold it to someone's throat.
Of course, I think he's failed to notice you can make a knife from a CD by snapping it in half, if you don't mind flying shards of plastic going everywhere. Wear eyeglasses for that one.
Trying to keep the class of 'sharp objects you can use to hurt people' from existing on an airplane is idiotic. We've got hundreds of thousands of years experience with sharp objects, often with using them against other people.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
slowly losing the "war" agaist linux...
To paraphrase him, Security is a mentality And that's about where the similarity ends. Bruce is qualified to write about how mentally challenged the TSA is because (as we can all agree) he's a smart guy. But electronic security and physical security don't share much more than the word "security" in their names. Protecting a network is absolutely nothing like protecting a country, and it's only Bruce's arrogance that leads him to think he has something to say about guarding borders. He doesn't.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Let me guess: your razor-sharp wit.
Was I right? Huh? Was I?
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
The report does state that the TSA has engaged in behaviour that is prima facia lying, even though said report doesn't use that word. Consequently, Bruce isn't disputing the report; rather, he's recasting its conclusions in a less favorable light, without arguing with the facts it found. Since there's no question of fact -- merely interpretation of facts which are agreed on by both the report and Bruce -- the /. editors are behaving entirely within the bounds of proper ethics in their claims.
BTW, it's "lying", not "lieing".
No but he is perfectly capable, and qualified, on commenting on the systems in place, and their quality, which is what he was asked to do.
For refrences please see:
Do Terror Alerts Work? Olympic Security U.S. 'No-Fly' List Curtails Liberties A National ID Card Wouldn't Make Us Safer
Your confusing Bruce Schneier with Counterpane security. There is a connection obviously, but wheras Counterpane concentrates on the computer security area, Schneier does not limit himself to that.
As to no realation between physical and electronic security. Ponder this. If a Gain physical access to your computer I also have access to your network. Mitnick showed us that the two are not as seperate as people would like to think.
I had my digital camera stolen from checked luggage by these people! I accept that I am partially at fault but packing it in luggage in the first place. Still, it should not be defacto assumption that my items will be stolen by the same people that are checking for BOMBS and WEAPONS in luggage! If these people are engaged in petty theft, what's to stop these same people from accepting $10,000 to PLANT a foreign object into someones bag??? And I'm not basing my opinion solely on my own experience. After some research, I found that theft complaints went up after TSA started checking bags! If they can't even do simple background checks on their own employees, how can anyone feel safe???
This is the government that Americans trust with a significant portion of their retirement (Social Security), their railroad system (Amtrak), their postal system (USPS), education, law enforcement, and so on?
Bill Clinton lied (about sex w/ Monica), Bush Jr. lied (about WMDs in Iraq), the FBI lied in a secret court (to get wiretaps), the TSA lied (about protecting passenger privacy)... where does it end? (especially given the record of older agencies like the FBI and CIA lying to the public)
At least when Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers lie, their companies go bankrupt and they (at least in Ebbers case, most likely, though probably Ken Lay too eventually) go to prison.
But when government fails, what happens? Generally, nothing.
Mod me as troll/flamebait/overrated now for not promoting heavy doses of socialism (a necessary precondition for a large government to exist, so it can accomplish such abuses as this one)...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
>> the /. editors are behaving entirely within the bounds of proper ethics in their claims...
No, they're not.
The headline inaccurately represents the story. The IG report did not accuse TSA of lieing, while Schneier. Hence, the question of lieing is in dispute. Other than Scheier, the story contains no source that asserts the TSA lied. Since Slashdot did not source the headline to Scheier (as in "Schneier Says TSA Lied..."), the reader must assume that the headline reflects their opinion. That -- Slashdot's opinion -- is precisely what should not be in the headline.
When you interpret the IG report as prima facia (sic) lying (sic), you are doing exactly what Slashdot should not have done. You have a right to draw your own conclusion. So does anyone who works at Slashdot. But, anyone with a sense of professional journalistic integrity should know that it is inappropriate for a headline writer to express his or her own opinions via the choice of words used in the headline. If Slashdot wants to say the TSA lied, they should write an editorial. Otherwise, I'm not interested in their opinions.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It seems that all these "security" policies are about the "perception" of security and not about actual security. Geesh, they were even collecting fingernail clippers from people visiting the Statue of Liberty....
Even with all the holes in the original CAPPS system, WHAT were they actually looking for? After all, it flagged most of the hijackers. Then NOTHING resulted from that with regard to actually securing the aircraft. The easily opened cockpit doors also begged to question of how intelligent our security "experts" really are. I've only flown first class a few times but I remember my first time. When they closed the cockpit door and blocked my view of the instruments, I thought how silly it was since that door was so flimsy. This was the early 90's... People already knew about crashing airplanes to impart more damage beyond that of the aircraft and it's occupants.
All and all, when you look at they foibles of our security systems before Sept 11, 2001, you actually see a system which surprisingly flagged most of the hijackers AND exposed their plan. What else you see is how badly that information was handled. Somehow, this was taken to mean that massive changes in the management of all the existing security departments was required.... It's like a bad wheel bearing is causing vibrations in the car and the owner of the service station tells you to replace the car.
Bin Laden may have started the ball rolling, but WE are doing a great job at really messing up this country. What next, putting the 10 Commandments in front of every government building to help improve security?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The TSA didn't lie, and I won't explain to you why. Go look up what they did say vs. what is distributed data.
Blogs - an easy way to whore your free-form, dubious and conjecture based thoughts to the world.
Must have hit a sore spot with the full of shit about privacy mods. How about instead of modding down what you don't like, you attempt to refute it. Sad really
The IG report did not accuse TSA of lieing
The word is "lying", not "lieing" -- and yes, they did. If I gently suggest that you're prevaricating, and coach that suggestion such as to avoid being boldly offensive, I'm still stating to the outside world (or at least that portion which is listening closely enough to catch my meaning) that I believe you lied. And no, I didn't interpret the IG report as "prima facia lying"; I interpreted it as an accusation of prima facia lying. It's a pretty damn clear accusation, at that.
But, anyone with a sense of professional journalistic integrity should know that it is inappropriate for a headline writer to express his or her own opinions via the choice of words used in the headline.
Bullshit. News media -- particularly the new media of which slashdot is a part, but traditional media as well -- has never been impartial, and for a media outlet to claim impartiality by suppressing overt references to the positions it takes is dishonest to its readership.
Otherwise, I'm not interested in their opinions.
Then stop reading.
Beating a dead horse:
Yeah, I'm sure some of you have magical instant-loading PDF viewers of some sort, but for those of us stuck on sluggish Windows machines using the incredibly-slow-to-load, lock-up-my-computer-while-it's-loading, Adobe Acrobat Reader...
could we please add a [PDF] warning to links to PDFs?
It may not be *quite* as bad as goatse, but it still merits a warning...
Acronym Nazi - An individual who engages in Karma Whoring by pointing out in a nauseatingly supercillious or irritating manner that a well-known acronymn (e.g, FAA, NASA, TSA, OSHA, etc.) has not been explained in the article when a simple Google search would suffice to find the answer to his or her lack of generally-known knowledge. It is currently unknown as to how these individuals' posts become modded up, but it is speculated that some form of Karmic Leakage is in play because a post bitching about not being spoon fed acronym meanings would not normally be seen as either insightful, interesting, or (in any way) funny.
... well now I know two. Well maybe two and a half, as I suspect that the OS in OSHA stands for Open Source, but I don't know about the HA. And as for engaging in Karma Whoring - far from it! I don't care at all about my karma. I think it's maxed. I wasn't going for karma, I was attempting to give Slashdot feedback on how to improve the quality of their news. You can't throw acronyms out there and expect everyone to know them. Real news services know this.
Nice troll. Here's why you're wrong: on real new sources, such as CNN, they aren't going to throw acronyms at you without explaining them. Most of the general public does not know what TSA stands for, and most of the Slashdot readers probably don't either. Of the "well-known" acronyms you've given: FAA, NASA, TSA, OSHA, I only knew one until this article
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
When ever one of our co-workers is required to check their laptop it never appears on the other end.
There must have been at least a dozen laptops that have gone missing after they where forced to be check.
Even after proof was given that one of the luggage handles had it in his possession they still would not do anything and refused our information. Our proof was simply one small program that ran upon boot that send messages back to our servers as to the IP and time the computer connected to the Internet. It was clear the computer was connecting consistently to one of the Airport's registered IP addresses. All they said was it was in internal matter and they would handle it themselves.
The company policy is that anything you check can be stolen - so do not check anything of value!
The airport is another world in which they seem to have their own set of laws!
But some may argue that our strength and military technology are results of our freedom. It seems that in most cases in the past, well developed countries that bacame totatliarian experienced a fast economical downturn.
AccountKiller
It should have been done back in the 1960's when high-jackings began.
It is now fourty years and thousands of deaths later and you can still walk in to the cock-pit with a knife at the throat of a stewerdess.
I'll believe that we give a [expletive deleted] about airplane safety when people can't get to/at the crew.
Until then, I'll stay on the ground.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Would you like to have the choice of whether to pay taxes and thus be put into a situation where if you weren't carrying a "taxpaying citizen" card, the police would refuse to help you/firemen would go back to the station/non-toll roads would be off-limits to you/military would not protect you? Would you like there to be factions that are competing to provide these very basic services? (I believe this idea was brought up in Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash", but not 100% certain.)
Post of the day. I have recorded your argument and will add it to my private rhetoric to my inadvertently overly ::cough:: ignorant ::cough:: conservative friends and family ;)
here's the link about the FBI lying about shipping the Saudis out, thanks to a post deeply embedded somewhere else.
Registration, sadly, is required to read it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Your argument uses a logical fallacy, and therefore is moot. By implying that polygamy is bad, you are appealing to social tradition, which is not a correct means of persuasion. If someone can provide for two or more families, and the two wives can get along with one another, who am I and, more importantly, who are you to question their decisions? It's not like a dude with two successful families is going to screw up society any more than a deadbeat dad who leaves his kids' well-being to be picked up by state welfare agencies.
I know this is going to negate any semblance of logical argument, but besides, two extremely cool wives would virtually ensure a threesome every night, and the good kind on top of that!
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
So, I'm going through another major city airport. I've got photo film. The kind of thing they say "don't run through the x-ray machine." I carry it to the entrance of the metal detector and hand it through, expecting to get hand-inspection, like they tell me to ask for for photo film. "Oops", the moron says, "you've just exposed it, you might as well put it on the conveyor for the x-ray." "What?" is the only spur-of-the-moment response I can come up with to such patent stupidity. "Metal detectors expose film just like the x-ray" he says.
So, I drop off my checked bag at the CTX machine on the way to a one-day service call. I get to the hotel that night, I find they've dug deep into my bag, into a small toolkit, and removed a small lighter (which I carry to light the butane soldering iron I need for my work outdoors.) They left the butane soldering iron. The note says "you should carry-on the lighter." So, a small butane lighter might be used, in checked baggage, for some nefarious purpose, but if I carry it on it will be perfectly safe. And guess what you cannot actually carry-on anymore -- butane lighters!
Don't forget where the people the TSA hired came from. The same set of people that the private security services were hiring when we said the private security services weren't doing the job. And now they are civil servants instead of private contractors, they are even less likely to be fired for stupidity.
Coming back through the same big city airport. Fifteen TSA employees at the security checkpoint. Thirteen were reading books and magazines (or looking at the pretty pictures, more likely.) Two were in an animated debate over some certainly life shattering event.
Actually, Bruce's arguments about security for th last 5 years or so are that physical and electronic security are in fact very similar, and no amout of crypto or gadetry makes security any easier. He's an expert on security protocols, which is what you want here.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
While my sympathies are with you the sample sizes we're talking about here are just too small. It's not at all unlikely that two times in a row could occur by purely by chance.
What is TSA, what does it do, what was it supposed to protect, why was it supposed to protect it, did it fail in protecting it, if so how did it fail in protecting it and why should we care? Or are we all supposed to move to USA now?
they could give us some chocolate or movie tickets in exchange for our personal information. Then it wouldn't seem so evil...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
-- Noam Chomsky
Happened to me last two times I've flown, and my name is as English as you can get. As far as I could tell, everything was still there.
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
Same Here...
The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
If the IG report didn't explicitly use the word "lie" to describe the TSA's action, then Slashdot's use of that word in a headline attached to a story about the IG report was inaccurate and lacking in integrity.
When Slashdot uses such a headline it is, in fact, being dishonest with its readers, because the story does not support the fact alleged in the headline, regardless of your wordsmithing and sophistry.
Journalistic headlines (not the Slashdot, by its own admission, practices journalism) should reflect only facts substantiated by the story. Any use of language reflecting the headline writer's opinion and biases is inaccurate or dishonest. (Contrary to your twisted notion that journalists are dishonest only when they suprress their own opinions and biases and write accurate stories supported by facts.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You must be new to air travel.
Don't check anything valuable.
And the TSA isn't the only one with access to your bags, there are a lot of luggage handlers. But hey, why not fabricate an anti-foreigner conspiracy? We're cool with that here.
Oh, btw, never EMAIL a giant company for help.
Your whole story is kind of like admitting you had a "kick me" sign on.
Tell us next time.
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIGr-05-1 2_Mar05.pdf
Ah, you kids with your interweb. When I was your age, if you couldn't find it on Archie, Gopher, or Veronica, it didn't exist. Shmooey.
One time I needed to find a document. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to log on cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah -- the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
...real journalists aren't allowed to paraphrase?
...while still each honestly believing that they are accurately representing objective truth...
That wasn't paraphrasing. It was, very likely, a deliberate use of a specific, sensationalistic, and inaccurate, word to play to the biases of the Slashdot crowd.
And, no journalists don't get to paraphrase if their choice of words isn't supported by the story. If the story doesn't say someone at Homeland Security said the TSA lied, then the word "Lied" should not have appeared in the headline.
Journalists don't claim to be "representing objective truth". They claim to be reporting objectively. That's something different. The former is a result, the latter is a method. No journalist I've ever known or worked with would ever claim to be representing objective truth. But, they do claim to follow established professional practices intended to increase the objectivity of their reporting. Like not putting their own opinions into their headlines or their stories. (That's Slashdot does on a regular basis, as a sop to their readers. But, in your twisted vision, I guess that make Slashdot great journalism. I think it puts then down in the gutter with tabloids and talk radio and makes a sucker out of you.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
you seem to forget quite fast..
/ever/ get a clue... ?
Clinton (president of the USofA) lied
Georges W. Bush (president of the USofA) lied
so please don't tell me you are supprised to learn that
american corpo lie too.
I did login just for that comment.
get a clue
"Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired,
go back to bed America, your government is in control again.
Here, here's American Gladiators.
Watch this,
shut up,
go back to bed America,
here is American Gladiators,
here is 56 channels of it!
Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and
congratulate you on living in the land of freedom.
Here you go America
you are free to do what we tell you!
You are free to do what we tell you!"
djeee will you
"Knowledge, as wisdom, has value
OH MY GOD!!!
(Duh...)
Christ, why is this even a story? If you don't know by now that telling lies is what government (ANY government) DOES, you're fucking hopeless...
Get a clue, morons.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
To find those, they could just start x-raying everyone.
Of course, if you really want to sneak illegal things in, tape razor blades to the CD compartment of your laptop. Or hide them in a PC card. That will get around the x-ray machines.
But the point wasn't that you can sneak sharp things on, everyone knows that. It's that they have failed to even ban all sharp things.
Obsidian knife are presumably banned. Metal epoxy is not banned, and neither are CDs. There are many things you can use as a weapon you can walk in with them in your hand, which means under no circumstances can security catch someone going to hijack a plane with them.
So not only do they have a problem in practice, they have a rather large theoretical problem also. Enumberating 'possible weapons' is impossible, unless they want us to go in naked and in handcuffs.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Do you believe there should be such a restriction? Talk to your Congressman, not us.
No, I really, really don't. Not more fucking restrictions!
Seriously, if some loony wants to cause rouble on a plane, they will. You can make a weapon out of absolutely anything.
Sorry to hear that.
My roommate is Indian, and his bag was searched when he flew back to school this week. However, instead of stealing things, the TSA seems to have folded his clothes for him.
I think what is being forgotten is that the opponents of gay marriage are speaking to those who already understand it as wrong, as if to stir up their collective anger against it. They aren't trying to convince you that it's wrong, but rather, stir up those who already believe it to be so.
Really, the so called "gay" marriage issue was settled about 20 years ago when "No Fault Divorce" became legal in most states. This is what really destroyed the sanctity of marriage, in effect reducing marriage to a merely legal covenant - muchy like a contract, but not quite as binding. Once marriage had been reduced from a transcendental, divine arrangement to merely a legal one, it was only a matter of time before gays would demand to marry, as they understood it - a contract devoid of any spiritual or moral meaning.
But despite the action of legislators, many people still consider the institution of marriage to be sacred and holy. It is an undertaking of selfless service and sacrifice - something at polar odds to what a "gay marriage" would be. Hence the debate rages on today, even though the law no longer recognizes marriage as a divine covenant.
So here's just one logical reason: the state is charged with protecting society as a whole. As future societies are the result of heterosexual relationships, the state need only recognize marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. There's simply no need for the state to recognize relationships in which the possibility of childbearing is explicitly disallowed. Yes, you may claim that some heterosexual marriages don't result in children, but these are the exception, rather than the rule. And you may also claim that gays love each other. So what? A lot of people have loving relationships which benefit only themselves. Even my brother loves his dog, but that doesn't mean it deserves legal recognition as marriage.
But what gets me is that gays are trying to have their relationships recognized as marriage. Why on earth would they want to use a term which represents a heterosexual relationship - a term which implies their relationship is somehow wrong? Why can't they just be honest about it - heck, even my brother loves his dog, but he's not asking anyone to consider it marriage. It doesn't need to be called marriage for a relationship to be recognized as loving - something you would think gays would understand, but apparently they don't.
And incidentally, from a legal perspective, the term marriage no longer means a loving, committed, and indissoluble relationship. If it did, a divorce would be a lot harder to get. You could even argue that what gays are really saying when they say they want to marry legally is that they're looking forward to going through a messy divorce in 5 years... but I digress...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I dont think the nonpartisan public thinks they are putting a party into the presidency.
/End_dream
I think they expect the president to do the things he said he would do and to handle issues with the same charachter as that they saw of him/her during campaigning.
I think they dont expect the president to do what their party decides to do at any given moment.
And if there were no partys, everyone would be nonpartisan, and the elected would much more closely represent the people!
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt. --E.C. Stanton
The Secret Agency. Now shut your piehole or you'll be disappeared.
Well, you're finally getting a clue, after praising Slashdot for being part of the alleged "new media" (although it isn't a blog).
I've seen the Slashdot staff repeatedly excuse their many amateurish displays of bias and incompetence by asserting that they aren't journalists. But, I've also seen them take refuge in the cloak of journalism when it suits theie purposes. (For the record, they are practicing journalism, regardless of anything they say. Even if the did nothing more than select stories to run, that is itself journalism. Beyond story selection, they do, in fact, write ledes and other setup material to place a story in the context in which they want it perceived.
But, if you able to determine the biases of Slashdot, why can't you also determine the biases of other journalists who you condemn as "dishonest? They engage in story selection; they write ledes; they attempt language that puts the alleged facts of each story in perspective, etc. Just like Slashdot. And, most likely, the work for a larger corporation, just like the Slashdot crew. Could it be that your own biases lead you to label any journalist who writes stories that don't support your own preconceived notions as dishonest?
You made the claim that all journalists are dishonest and failed to provide any evidence. Sounds like bias to me.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You made the claim that all journalists are dishonest
/. such bad media but consume it nonetheless. Do you expect your complaints to change anything? If not, what's the point?
No, I didn't. I said that journalists who attempt to disguise their biases are dishonest. That's different from "all" journalists. I also left out a key word that would have better represented my thoughts but made this debate a bit less fun -- I consider the behaviour in question intellectual dishonesty, as opposed to the unqualified variety.
You made the claim that all journalists are dishonest and failed to provide any evidence.
Evidence is only needed if we disagree on the facts. We both agree that journalists commonly attempt to behave in an unbiased manner; and I think you accept my premise that there are other manners (selection of sources, etc etc) in which bias nonetheless asserts itself.
Could it be that your own biases lead you to label any journalist who writes stories that don't support your own preconceived notions as dishonest?
Probably not. The form of intellectual dishonesty I've been discussing here isn't one I think of much in the real world, and being guilty of it doesn't lead me to internally consider someone dishonest in general; it's just something that happens as a result of following best practices [of trying to behave in an unbiased manner to the point where the only remaining biases are disguised]. Other than the fellow who was lobbing Bush easy questions, I can't offhand think of a single journalist I consider personally, as opposed to intellectually, dishonest. (Biased? Absolutely! Dishonest, no).
Incidentally, I consume quite a lot of paper media, ranging from the Austin Chronicle (which is, generally, quite unabashed about its biases) to the WSJ (which is less straightforward about its, though they're reasonably visible). I don't consider the WSJ worse media than the Chronicle -- much the opposite is true -- though in this one respect, the Chronicle is more straightforward with its readership.
Clear, now?
I still find it curious that you consider
p.3: Respondents were presented the major items of the discretionary budget, including a breakdown of the proposed funding for each item, and given an opportunity to redistribute the funds as they saw fit.
So they were told how much we are currently spending, and asked if they wanted to keep it the same, reduce it, or increase it. The results were interesting:
p.11: ...defense spending was the area most deeply cut. On average respondents cut it
$133.8 billion or 31%, from $435.9 billion to $302.1 billion. Overall 65% cut defense spending.
This overall reduced spending mostly came from:
p.11: reducing spending on the capacity for conducting large-scale nuclear and conventional wars. However, majorities opposed cutting spending on personnel, intelligence, communication, and the capacity to conduct unconventional warfare: special operations, peacekeeping, and fighting insurgencies.
If you read the report, you'll note that people really knew what they wanted to cut.
Result: both democrats and republicans want to decrease overall military spending.
You said: ...journalists are dishonest (not "only" dishonest) when they write stories supported by a set of facts which they chose based on their prior knowledge, selection of contacts, etc. but attempt to deny the biases inherent in those factors...
...I think you accept my premise that there are other manners (selection of sources, etc etc) in which bias nonetheless asserts itself.
/., I've read it for several years, but find myself only glancing at it for a few minutes these days. Too predictable. As a news source, it is hopeless: it often manages to point to a story two or three days after the story broke. Plus the story selection seems increasingly geared to 16-year old kids -- too many stories about filesharing, the latest Star Wars tidbit, and the "evils" of Microsoft.
I don't think that's dishonest behavior. All news reports are written based on prior knowledge, contact selection, and inclusion of facts the reporters thinks are relevant. Readers may disagree about a reporter's judgement or thoroughness, but that doesn't make him dishonest. As for biases, it is a reporter's job to suppress those biases and opinions and write an objective story. I don't want to see news stories prefaced with the reporter's confession of biases. Nor do I want reporters given free rein to expose their biases and, then, to allow this biases to influence what they write. Many bloggers tout this kind of transparency as something that builds credibility, but I react to it in the opposite fashion. If someone exposes his opnion and biases in his writings, I assume that any news report he may produce is also infected with bias and opinion and, hence, untrustworthy.
I do, but it is the reader's job to deal with that. It is illogical to expect any single media source to be completely thorough, accurate, objective and unbiased, and to turn to it as your single source of news. Anyone looking to the news media for "objective truth" is looking in the wrong place, no matter how many different sources they digest. (It's worth remembering that the people making the news are awash in bias and opinion, and pushing their own agendas, just like everyone else. I know from personal experience that a surprising number of people would criticize a completely accurate, objective and unbiased report on, say, a Ted Kennedy stump speech about Bush's Social Security proposal as inaccurate, non-objective, and biased simply because they apparently can't distinguish between the speech and the report on the speech.)
Have to say I've never quite figured out the difference between intellectual dishonesty and personal dishonesty. If a reporter's biases lead him to deliberately craft an inaccurate story, that seems to me to be personal dishonesty. If the same biases implicitly impact a story, without any intent on the reporter's part, I don't think that's dishonest, either intellectually or personally.
Sounds like I wouldn't have much use for the Austin Chronicle if it allows it opinions to shape its news stories. If I lived in Austin, I wouldn't want to be able to discern what the Chronicle thought about the mayor and the city council by reading the front page.
As for
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
In any event -- this isn't fun anymore, and I have Real Work to do; consequently, I'm out. Your position is reasonable, and likely even correct (which is to say that I don't wholeheartedly believe the arguments made prior to this paragraph). Even so, I'm still inclined to think of /. as something very much like a blog, and so acknowledge that they're not even trying to hold themselves to professional standards (so why get upset when they fail?). Been an enjoyable discussion; thanks for having it.
...Biases do have influence, even if it's a reduced amount when trying to suppress them. Making an honest attempt to show the other side of a story on which one takes a position is fine -- indeed, necessary...
... one needs to get information from somewhere...
... it also means not pretending to be completely impartial if one has a personal position on a topic.
...they're not even trying to hold themselves to professional standards...
Of course, biases have influence. However, if someone is writing a news story and there are, in fact, two sides to the issue (often, there're aren't, e.g., a car crash story) then the report should reflect both sides if, and only if, it has news value. For instance, if the Israeli Knesset votes on legislation about settlements, then a report on that vote should include Palestinian reaction if, at the time of writing, that reaction exists. If it doesn't, the reporter has no obligation to attempt to present the Palestinian point of view. The reporter's summation of Palestinian policy is not news and has no place in the article. His job is to report what others say and do. And if he phoned the Palestinians and they'd refused comment, then that's all he puts in the report. If the reporter wants to tell people about his opinions, he needs to write an editorial or a column. Those are part of journalism, but they aren't part of news reporting. (Ditto talk radio, talking heads on TV, and reporters interviewing other reporters.)
Sure, but objective truth is not equivalent to information. Information can be accurate, inaccurate or anywhere in between. The search for objective truth is a religious quest; the search for information is a quest for facts.
Why not? You certainly wouldn't want to use it as your sole source of information -- but using it in combination with an alternate news source (with a different perspective, perhaps even with a directly opposed bias) works well.
You seem to be arguing that a news source can't help but be biased. I'm arguing that professional reporters should make every effort to remove suppres bias. I don't expect them to be perfect, but I also don't expect them to trumpet their biases and cross the line between reporter and advocate. That's when my trust disappears. Leave the advocacy on the editorial page.
Of course no reporter, or anyone else, is competely impartial. But, impartiality and objectivity are two different things, and it is a reporters job to put his own opinions aside and write an objective story. Most reporters I've known are very opinionated people, but if they can't keep their opinions out of their stories, they should be fired.
Agree; they've said as much several times. In general, though, I think it is a copout.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Yup, the sad truth is that in the 1980s, Americans at least still needed our politicians to lie to us about their work for the working citizens. These days, that kind of talk is at a minimum, because Americans aren't as interested. Though we need it more than ever, due to foreign competition, destruction of labor market sustainability, aging workforce, lowered education, unrestricted management freedom and global capital flight. Bush is just one stupid asshole. Without the 50M stupid assholes voting for him, he'd be just another Texas cokehead fratboy.
--
make install -not war
There already is a break inherent in dual-parent families onyl taking in one income. Once you factor in daycare, cleaning, increased taxes, and the like, dual incomes don't bring in that much more than the single income. There will always be exceptions to the rule, I suspect, what I wonder how many of these dual income families would find they were making a lot less extra than they expected, when all is said and done. *wry grin* And that's not even getting into the potential costs of the latchkey generation coming to age...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.