Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Used for Whistleblowing

fightmaster writes "A Lockheed Martin engineer with concerns about the safety and security flaws in a fleet of refurbished Coast Guard patrol boats turned to YouTube in order to publicize concerns he felt were being ignored by his employer and the government. From the article: 'The 41-year-old Lockheed Martin engineer had complained to his bosses. He had told his story to government investigators. He had called congressmen. But when no one seemed to be stepping up to correct what he saw as critical security flaws in a fleet of refurbished Coast Guard patrol boats, De Kort did just about the only thing left he could think of to get action: He made a video and posted it on YouTube.com.'"

41 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Was he going for first coast?

  2. I saw this a little while ago.. by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Very interesting. While I don't think all the equipment should be replaced to meet the artic temperature thing, I think that the problem should be noted, and the contractor should have to pay some reimbursement for not meeting all the terms of the contract. Some number of ships should be retrofitted, but it may be a big waste to do it with all of them

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    1. Re:I saw this a little while ago.. by Odin_Tiger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      contractor should have to pay some reimbursement for not meeting all the terms of the contract

      Why should LM shoulder all the blame and punishment? The Coast Guard was made well aware of the issues, but chose to push the project through anyways and quietly-but-knowingly accepted the faulty products.

      Say a car salesman offers you $10k for your car. On the way there, you realize that you're leaking brake fluid, slowly but surely. So you're upfront about it when you finally get the car to the lot...and the salesman just shrugs his shoulders, gives you the $10k anyways, and says, "Let's just keep this between you and me, eh? I'll just drop the car on the next sucker to come through the door, and nobody'll ever know." So you cash the check, and he turns around and sells it to the sucker. One of the junior salesmen gets all ethical and blows the whistle, saying that this could result in somebody's death, etc. Ok, maybe you didn't do the most ethical thing, but then again, why should you be any more responsible for paying to fix the leak than the salesman? You're not the one who shelled out big bucks for a piece of shit. You were up front about it, they accepted the deal anyways.
      This needs to come back on the Coast Guard and every other agency the guy tried to take this to far more badly than it needs to come back on LM. If the government starts to get punished for paying more and accepting less, they'll stop doing it, and private business will take care of itself (or go broke and be replaced by someone who will...either way is fine.)

      --
      Unpleasantries.
  3. A Fine Example... by MBC1977 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While his employers probably will administratively punish and / or fire him, because his actions may save my coastie brothers and sisters
    in the long run,I tip my hat off to you. Sometimes you gotta grab life by the horns, to do the right thing.

    Regards,

    MBC1977,
    (US Marine, College Student, and Good Guy!)

    --
    Regards,

    MBC1977,
    1. Re:A Fine Example... by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you are correct.

      People with real strength of character that do the right thing despite all the peer pressure in the world are often punished by our system and the cowards within it. It took 30 years for the military to recognize Hugh Thompson.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.

      Or Sibel Edmonds, former FBI translator, is another good example:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

      In both cases, they are/were both punished for their roles by the very people they called out. This engineer will face a similiar time, I imagine. If not openly, they will find a unrelated reason to fire him within 6 months if not immediately. Or put him in a crappy closet as an office (same thing happened to my principle whose contract guaranteed they couldn't fire him for anything short of being a murderer. My school district once was paying 14 principles at the same time because of crap like this, but alas that's a different story...)

    2. Re:A Fine Example... by hcob$ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      While his employers probably will administratively punish and / or fire him, because his actions may save my coastie brothers and sisters in the long run,I tip my hat off to you. Sometimes you gotta grab life by the horns, to do the right thing.
      Also, to add to this from an Engineer standpoint. If you are an Engineer in Training(EiT) or Professional Engineer(PE) and you are serious about your job and your career, you are aware that there is a code of ethics for any Engineer; therefore, this IS the ONLY OPTION left. If this guy (as a PE I would assume) has gone through his management and Congress the only option is then to alert the the general public as a matter of ethics, espescially if he believe tests were altered/forged.

      In the end this must be said. This man is upholding the highest standards of what an "Engineer" is. If he ever faces legal action, I will gladly donate to his cause. Also, I would hope that the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) should not only suggest many good lawyers, but they should offer much assistance to this man as possible.

      He is in the most difficult place an Engineer could be. Chose between your family(supporting them with a career) or his duty as an Engineer.
      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
  4. Couple of old sayings come to mind by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you point the finger at someone else, there are three more pointing back at you.

    In other words, the standard pointing gesture highlights the intense scrutiny the whistleblower will face.

    Spend your silver bullet wisely.

    I sincerely hope that follow-on work isn't hard to come by.

    If YouTube had existed in time for some space-shuttle engineers, we might not have had two birds transferred to NADA.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  5. And lo ! Its Lockheed Martin again by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The heritage of the SAME company that have bribed government heads, bureucrats in countries tenfold around the world, including germany, to oust their competitors and sell their f104s. Their FAULTY designs.

    The SAME company who caused around 150-200 air service pilots to lose their lives around the world flying their faulty f104s.

    The SAME company which recently admitted their wrong doing.

    The SAME company, which is at it AGAIN.

  6. His points... by BenJeremy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OK, let me summarize what he covers (I didn't finish the last bit of the video, though).

    1. Blind spot in watch cameras.
          OK, thanks for pointing those out. Now we can board the boats and steal them. Yes, this is an issue, and one that should be fixable, but extra cameras will also affect the systems that digitize and monitor them, as well. Still, this system should be fixed, but it's not a major thing, and now you've just told anybody who's interested (in a bad way) how to take advantage of the flaw. Thanks.

    2. FLIR Equipment not rated for -40 deg
          My problem with this is, working in automotive systems, we regularly see this requirement, and it's more of a "spec" thing. Most electronics are fine in cold weather... short of devices with moving parts (hard drive, for example). Just because the FLIR is not "rated" at -40 doesn't mean it can't handle such temperatures, only that one or more components (chips, capacitors, resistors, etc...) in the system are not CERTIFIED to operate at the wide range of temperatures. Certification for this requirement is often an expensive process and often, certified and uncertified parts are identical in everything but price (or availability, more often). I think he's a little bit out there on this one.

    3. Use of non-shielded cable in "secure" communications systems.
          This one is a bit ridiculous, and shows his paranoia. The cables failed "visual" - of course, because they are not shielded. He concludes that because they are not shielded, they MUST have failed the electronic test, and because they officially passed, somebody must have cheated. While Tempest-class (back in my days as a Marine) cables were shielded out the ying-yang, and there was, even back in the 80's some amazing intel gathering stuff out there (pull phone conversations from a telephone wire, 30 feet from the pole, wirelessly, for example)... we are talking about CUTTERS. ON THE SEA. Effectiveness of devices that can isolate and monitor any given cable line over more than 100 feet falls off dramatically, particularly in a signal-rich (i.e. "noisy") environment. I'm guessing the electronic test DID pass, which is why it was allowed to be built with the unshielded cable. Still, why couldn't they have provided proper shielded cable? It's not like a huge price difference, and if availability was an issue here, what about simple external mesh around the cable runs?

          Like I said, I see he has concerns, but this is really the wrong way to deal with it, and puts our Coast Guards at much greater jeopardy than the things he's addressing!

    1. Re:His points... by linguizic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      now you've just told anybody who's interested (in a bad way) how to take advantage of the flaw. Thanks.

      This might be enlightening for you:

      Security through obscurity

      --
      Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
    2. Re:His points... by Jartan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People missed one important point. They tested -one- piece of equipment to see if it was rated for the temperatures the ship might go into and they were told to stop testing for such a thing.

      That means they added several things all of which could fail in intended temperatures. It could be stuff that fails in extreme heat or humidity too.

      All in all though I found it kind of amusing that the guy making the video thinks people will find it shocking. Personally I expect govt contractors do this kind of stuff five times before they even get to breakfast every day.

    3. Re:His points... by Flavio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We have different takes on this. You're using a lot of assumptions regarding favorable operating conditions to justify these as forgivable design problems. With military grade equipment you can make no such assumptions. I see all these issues as negligent corner cutting.

      Problem (1) indicates that the system has a critical design flaw -- one that defeats its sole purpose.

      Problem (2) shows that Lockheed Martin didn't follow the specs and actually refused to test some subsystems for compliance. If the engineer displays good judgement, he can incorporate parts that operate out of spec and only slightly increase the failure rate (and decrease the MTBF). But these are military systems, you want them to have very, very small failure rates, and you want to guarantee this. This can be brutally expensive, but that's one of the reasons why military contractors charge an order of magnitude more than civilian contractors.

      Problem (3) is just lousy design on a system designed to be secure. It doesn't matter if the boat is meant to be at sea most of the time. You want secure communications in all possible scenarios, including the very unlikely ones. Even if someone planted a radio receiver in the bridge. Somehow you assume that these subsystems passed their tests. I for one am not giving Lockheed-Martin the benefit of the doubt, specially considering how much RF tends to leak and how strict secure communication standards are.

    4. Re:His points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My point was by announcing the problem, and giving away more than enough detail, he's essentially given anybody with access to Coast Guard docks the road map to enter their 100ft cutters and steal boats, right this very minute. He didn't need to do this.... I believe he noted that they're using watch people to get around this flaw, indicating that the boats are still secure, just that a massive amount of money was totally wasted because of it. Of course it's far more fun to say "he's endangering our fleet" than it is to say "Lockheed Martin fucked up." Especially if you're an arrogant and short-sighted idiot, like yourself.

  7. Re:Or... QWZX by PhysicsPhil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the employer AND the government AND the congressman AND apparently no one else will listen to this boob, maybe, just maybe, his issue ain't that important and he should quit bellyaching.

    Does this also apply to engineers of electronic voting systems?

  8. Re:Wow a TubeCast! by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or, maybe, instead of posting a video of him reading from a script, he could have just posted the script. Saves a lot of time and bandwidth for everyone involved.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  9. Re:Or... QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When engineers warned that New Orleans levees could not withstand a moderate-strength hurricane and complained to their employees, AND to the state, AND to the federal government AND apparently no one else would listen to these boobs, maybe, just maybe the issue was important and someone should have listened to their bellyaching.

    You idiot.

  10. And guess what by johansalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This video was posted 3 weeks ago and only had a 100 odd ratings, even after appearing on slashdot. Meanwhile a regular skanky youtube teen could get thousands within a hours. Even you guys will probably move on to the next story in a few minutes. I think the government is safe.

    1. Re:And guess what by palutke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, he'd have better ratings if he'd flash his tits at the camera while describing the fraud.

      --
      'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
  11. Re:Or... QWZX by Grym · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the employer AND the government AND the congressman AND apparently no one else will listen to this boob, maybe, just maybe, his issue ain't that important and he should quit bellyaching.

    Did you even watch the video?

    Basically the entire project he was working on was a sham. Not only were the systems not designed to specifications but were flawed in such a way as that if they did fail they would do so catastrophically.

    Do you even know what FLIR is? It's how they know navigate and identify targets in low-level light conditions or fog (which, I hope I don't have to tell you is very common on coastlines). It's very simple, if the FLIR system fails (and according to him it will at low temperatures), people can die--either from collisions or friendly fire. If what he's saying is true, he should be making a stink.

    Furthermore, the security camera issue is huge too. It's one thing to have blind spots. It's quite another to have two symmetrical approach angles that lead right ONTO the ship which can't be seen. Again, a failure due to this design flaw could lead to either the capture or deaths of American servicemen. And it could've been fixed by only adding one more camera.

    As far as the non-TEMPEST compliance goes--I don't know. As I understand it, TEMPEST is literally tin-foil hat paranoid, but honestly there's no reason not to use something as simple as shielded cables is that's all that's preventing compliance.

    Regardless, this is just another example of how government incompetence combined with corporate greed serves to hurt the American taxpayer and unnecessarily puts the lives of our service-men and women at risk. If you don't think there's a connection between this very believable story and deadly screw-ups like the lack of armored vehicles in Iraq or the Ospreys crashes, you're the boob--not the whistleblower.

    -Grym

  12. As an engineer... by hcob$ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His DUTY was to INFORM his management, government, congressman, intelligence services, etc. that he had SERIOUS concerns relative to the project he was leading. Anything less is unworthy of the status of Lead Engineer

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    1. Re:As an engineer... by IntelitaryMilligence · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most Lead Engineers would stop there and assume the duty was fulfilled. He went beyond the call and made it public.

  13. Re:Lockheed Martin is an inferior company by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Compaired to who? Last I checked Lockheed makes the best radar systems in the world. Last I checked Lockheed makes the ONLY anti-ballistic missle defense systems in the world, not just land based by sea based.

    It was also the company that is bailing out Raytheon on the Zumwalt class destroyers ( DD(X) / DD-21 ). Politics screwed that decision, almost forcing the contract to Raytheon who didn't have the capability to really design the ship. Realizing this Raytheon subcontracted Lockheed to do a lot of the work...

    Again, inferior compaired to who? Now I do think that this might have some merit, but if no one cared at the Coast Guard, the people who are ordering the ships, I don't think there is anything more to say. In the end, they are the ones who need to say that it is unacceptible. They are the ones who need to say that we want X% of money back due to not meeting X requirement(s). Once they had been notified by this engineer of the concerns, I don't know what more you can say. Do we know if Lockheed themselves brought this up to the Coast Guard? As the engineer states, he no longer works on the program, and wouldn't be privy to that knowledge. If Lockheed brought the matter up to the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard didn't care, this is all a big nothing in my opinion. Yes, improvements could be made, but we can say that about everything out there. It all comes down to costs to make the improvements. If the Coast Guard would rather have the ships as is now instead of waiting x months for redesign, re-fit, then so be it.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  14. Re:Possible Retribution? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the problem here is a belief that defense contractor work, and the suckage on the taxpayer teat has a direct relationship with the original requsted specification. Nothing could be further from the truth. This fellow honestly believes what he does what he builds or what he designs bears ANY resemblence to what some boots on the ground WANTED. Who was it who said: "Elephant: mouse designed by commitee to government specification" ?

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  15. Re:Wow a TubeCast! by sbrown123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or he could have just sent an anonymous tip to the press who would have loved to pick up on something like this...

    You think the media would have posted this? The media is more concerned with the (now cleared) Jon Bennett Ramsey suspect, a plane that crashed after flying off a short runway, and some polygamist that somehow ended up on the FBI most wanted list (I still wonder how that polygamist beat out all those serial child molesters, mass murderers, and terrorists).

    And despite this being out there now, expect no mention in the mass media.

  16. Watch the show again dimwit by brennz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He said "We found out the FLIR system would not survive temperatures below -5". There is a vast chasm between saying "this FLIR is not rated for -5" and saying "the FLIR would not survive temperatures below -5". I'm not sure on FLIR sensitivity to cold weather, but he is implying it would then break.

    Oh another point, all tactical systems that handle classified material and are not in special facilities, e.g. a SCIF, need to be protected against TEMPEST / COMSEC & all that jazz. This is common knowledge for anyone with a SIGINT background in the mil/intel arena.

    Obviously a cutter is built for shallow water work. That means near to shores not way out in the Atlantic Ocean. Big Antenna on the shore, camo'd in the trees, picks up classified comms - not unrealistic.

    There is no such thing as paranoia when it comes to protecting classified material.

    Initially, I was considered as written by an amateur, but then I noticed that part about you being a Marine. Figures!

    1. Re:Watch the show again dimwit by Zixia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He said "We found out the FLIR system would not survive temperatures below -5". There is a vast chasm between saying "this FLIR is not rated for -5" and saying "the FLIR would not survive temperatures below -5". I'm not sure on FLIR sensitivity to cold weather, but he is implying it would then break.

      I'm an environmental engineer working in a company that designs defence electronics. The FLIR system would have gone through environmental testing across the whole temperature range, including power-on at the extremes. I got the same understanding from the video as you, and he is stating that the equipment failed to work at temperatures below -5C.

      It's unlikely that the equipment would break, as it is likely its components are rated to -55C unpowered, but more that some part of the electronics would simply fail to work as intended because of the effects of the temperature. Once warmed above -5C the system would start operating as normal again. Nevertheless, this would be considered as quite a serious failure in my field. It's not even a borderline failure, but a great deal outside of the specification.

  17. Re:rebuttal by coolgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you might want to do a little research into the NSA's TEMPEST security standard. This evolved primarily out of the revelation of Wim van Eck who in 1985 demonstrated that it was possible to duplicate the display of a monitor at a range of several hundred meters, using $15 worth of electronics and a TV set. Unless they've been training people to decrypt (with their eyes and brains) information they read off a monitor, I think it's safe to assume that data displayed on a monitor aboard one of these ships is unencrypted, and potentially containing text messages about current intelligence, commands to the ship, etc. It's not that big of a reach to think with the advancements in DSPs since 1985, that $1500 worth of sniffing equipment could easily extend that several hundred metre range to 5 or 10 miles.

    You might also do well to actually watch the video. Only the first batch of retrofitted ships are on regular patrol in the Gulf of Mexico. Eventually all the 123-foot Cutters, including those used in the Arctic and The Persian Gulf will receive the same retrofits.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
  18. Re:Wow a TubeCast! by pluther · · Score: 2, Insightful
    (I still wonder how that polygamist beat out all those serial child molesters, mass murderers, and terrorists).

    He was a serial child molester. Many of his "wives" were underage, as were several of the girls involved in "marriages" that he arranged.

    And despite this being out there now, expect no mention in the mass media.

    It might get mentioned now. It's an almost familiar pattern now: issue ignored by mainstream press, picked up and talked about on the internet, queries made to the press, and the press reading various blogs and sites like this, they finally decide it's a worthy story and run it.

    I would certainly never expect to see anything on TV news first anymore.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  19. Re:Wow a TubeCast! by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By posting a video he's putting a face to the issue -- he becomes an actual person rather than merely a collection of words. It's far more engaging, and it makes a much greater impression than a semi-anonymous essay posted somewhere. Additionally, he probably wouldn't have gotten the press coverage he's getting if he had done as you suggest.

  20. Re:Or... QWZX by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wow - the most important criminals, Lockheed Martin (arms dealer to the world), the present fascist government, ready to attack Iran as soon as the oil prices start to slide down, and a member of the largest whore house in the Western Hemisphere, your friendly neighborhood congressperson....

    What does any of that have to do with any of the issues in question here? Interesting, Maybe. Relevent, no.

    The guy's employers disagree with him that there is a problem. Simply because he's a "little guy" doesn't make him right. Apperently, no one else on the project agrees with him. But just because he's going up against the "big bad Lockheed Martin" doesn't make him right. We have no proof at all that anything he says is anything more than opinion.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  21. Re:Or... QWZX by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Certainly we have no proof, but having worked several years for a prime defense contractor, I'm inclined to believe him just because this sounds exactly like the kind of shenanigans I saw firsthand in that environment. It's all about CYA, and whether a deliverable actually meets the requirements spelled out in the Statement of Work is often secondary to how much shit the CO or COTR will have to endure if it doesn't. Raising a red flag indicating that sub-standard deliverables had been accepted by the contracting agency was generally frowned upon quite intensely, as no one in the front offices of our organization wanted to bite the hand that fed them. I can't imagine that Lockheed would be much different.

    The guy has basically destroyed his career and probably ruined himself financially to present this information, so I would think it's something he feels pretty strongly about.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  22. Sad but true by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

    lose their lives around the world flying their faulty f104s.

    Here's a hint: If a company is in the business of making, marketing, and selling bombs, they have 0% respect for human life.

    Try and keep that in mind :(

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  23. Re:"United States" Congress is inferior by lelitsch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, in Britain, he would have been hit with the Official Secrets Act, prosecuted, driven out of the country and maybe put in prison for a few weeks until the government realized that they mede complete asses of themselves. ;)

  24. Re:Or... QWZX by grahammm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Also with the challenger disaster, where the engineers' concerns were overruled by management.

  25. The signal leakage issue is real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I haven't worked with anything requiring the TEMPEST spec., but having done a little work in EMC labs (specifically, testing of leakage / interference in signal lines) I can say that unshielded lines DO leak signals out by default, sometimes with enough intensity to make nearby sensitive equipment not work (meaning way more than enough to detect). It is possible that it just happened to be pretty quiet this time, but that would just be good luck--and hopefully they checked every boat, since the results won't be the same.

    Not just activity originating on the boat, but anything they happen to receive (since their equipment probably decodes all the classified signals going past) will leak out unencrypted.

    These aren't just random people who would be trying to listen in on the Coast Gaurd--they've got to protect their data against other countries' equivalents to the NSA. Just because we're not at war with any Central / South American country doesn't mean it would be OK for them to hear our communications, or that they won't listen.

  26. Re:This guys is not a RF engineer. by Detritus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're assuming a perfect world. In the real world, balanced circuits are not perfectly balanced and components drift and fail. Part of real-world engineering is to think about the consequences of foreseeable events.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  27. Re:Or... QWZX by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thanks for taking your responsibilities seriously. We need more people that do.

    --
    Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
  28. Re:Or... QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You are absolutely correct. I work for a non-defense large agency and it's the same sort of thing. The COTR makes deals with the business orgs "We'll deliver some unusable hunk of crap by December of 07 and you'll claim to be using it and we'll both get clean audits and then we can start work on the real system". It's actually even MORE depressing when you know from day one that the next 18 months of work you do is going to be thrown away in 18 months and one day.

    It's a great use of taxpayer dollars.

    Working for a federal agency has done what no amount of conservative pundits and economists could do for 20 years: made me an advocate of smaller government.

  29. Re:Or... QWZX by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    no analogously perverse incentive exists for them to deploy defective gunboats.

    How about the fact that they've already been deployed, and fixing the problem will thus be expensive and inconvenient for the government/coast guard, and the contractor doesn't want egg on their face. Seems like a couple of good incentives to me.

  30. Re:Lockheed Martin is an inferior company by RShizzle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my mind, the issue here is not what the product was, or if it was acceptable. Because, this would be fine if it were private Coast Guard dollars paying for the boats. The issue is if tax dollars, gleaned from the hard working citizens, were squandered on a goverment program intended to protect the people, and the people end up not being protected either because of government inefficacy, or corporate greed. That is the real question.

  31. Re:Or... QWZX by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hahahahahaha, good one.

    Your international calls are eavesdropped on by the NSA, an agency specifically not permitted to conduct surveillance on US citizens. Your domestic calls are traffic-analysed for "patterns indicating terrorism". Your ISP, telephone and library records are browsed by law enforcement not only without a warrant, but with punishments for the librarians/engineers/companies responsible if they tip you off.

    You're holding hundreds of foreign nationals in legal limbo in a concentration camp, where they're regularly humiliated and tortured with complete administration approval. They're subject to secret trials without legal protection, and "due process" isn't even paid lip-service. The CIA has been caught illegally flying suspects to authoritarian regimes through your allies airports without permission so they can be "properly" tortured without US personnel being directly held responsible.

    The PATRIOT act powers, far from only being used to catch terrorists (as promised) have been used to harrass holidaymakers, arrest peaceful demonstrators and deny innocent people flights and passports. In addition, said powers were recently renewed and made permanent, even though they were firmly promised to be "only temporary" when introduced after 9/11.

    Your democratic system is hopelessly corrupt - one party controls (and is consolidating its hold) on all three branches of your government, your representatives are either corrupt or powerless in the face of the Whitehouse, judicial oversight of the executive branch has been gutted, your leaders are known to have broken the law multiple times and that's not even counting the constant background noise of corrupt representatives (to be fair, more Republicans than Democrats, but still both) being outed in dodgy financial deals and abuses of power. Your elections would embarrass a south american banana republic, with Diebold and ES&S machines showing all kinds of voting irregularities (when people haven't been erroneously thrown off the voting rolls for daring to have a similar name to a convicted felon), machines so easy to hack a chimpanzee has been videoed doing it and programmers testifying the systems are insecure by design, and that they were paid to produce election-subverting tools for Republican party members.

    You've lost the rights to: not be searched without due cause, not permit law enforcement entry into your home without "good reason" to believe a crime is being committed, the right to free speech and the majority of rights ensuring your privacy.

    And that's without even touching on the deliberate treason by the current administration outing an undercover CIA operative for political gains, "clamping down on terrorism" by selling off your ports to a middle-eastern company with decidedly dodgy connections, an illegal war in Iraq, thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent foreign nationals dead, an army so unpopular it can't recruit enough people to mintain parity and so financially fucked it can't afford proper equipment for the people they already have.

    Plus, y'know, Creationism/ID being taught as "science", the environment, your entire foreign policy making you a pariah in the international scene and all the other fun things that haven't changed a bit since 9/11.

    Need I go on?

    --
    Everything in moderation, including moderation itself