Slashdot Mirror


Examining the Search and Seizure of Electronics at Airports

Angus McKraken brings us a Washington Post story about how travelers are seeking more well-defined policies and rules about the search and seizure of electronic devices by U.S. Customs officials. The EFF has already taken legal action over similar concerns. We recently discussed the related issue of requiring people to disclose their passwords in order to search their private data. From the Post: "Maria Udy, a marketing executive with a global travel management firm in Bethesda, said her company laptop was seized by a federal agent as she was flying from Dulles International Airport to London in December 2006. Udy, a British citizen, said the agent told her he had 'a security concern' with her. 'I was basically given the option of handing over my laptop or not getting on that flight,' she said. 'I was assured that my laptop would be given back to me in 10 or 15 days,' said Udy, who continues to fly into and out of the United States. She said the federal agent copied her log-on and password, and asked her to show him a recent document and how she gains access to Microsoft Word. She was asked to pull up her e-mail but could not because of lack of Internet access. With ACTE's help, she pressed for relief. More than a year later, Udy has received neither her laptop nor an explanation."

699 comments

  1. United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Y'all just keep on sleepwalking, the government is taking care of everything...

    1. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I took a flight once from Dulles to Dublin. They told me my laptop tested positive for nitro glycerin. I said "so?" They said "well nitro glycerin is in a lot of hand lotions" "Then I used hand lotion." The TSA is really hit or miss. I had to take off my flip flop sandals at Louis Armstrong Airport in New Orleans. "You call these shoes?" "They're footwear" And they were patting down a disabled WWII vet in a wheelchair. I told the fresh out of high school kid that he should be embarrassed. That old guy obviously hates America. You're really at their mercy though.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    2. Re:United Police State of America by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Two of us flew out of Denver a couple of years ago during the ski season. My skis tested positive for explosives - normal if it has snowed recently and they have been triggering avalanches - and my friend's ski boots tested positive.

      The boots were in her suitcase. The guys got to rummage through her underwear. She was *not* amused. I understand female celebrities tend to mail their underwear home for just that reason.

      This theft of laptops at airports is in a different class though, those guys have been given too much power.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    3. Re:United Police State of America by matria · · Score: 2, Informative

      that's glycerine in hand lotion. Somebody is pulling somebody's finger here.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerol
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin

    4. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they were patting down a disabled WWII vet in a wheelchair. I told the fresh out of high school kid that he should be embarrassed.

      Timothy McVeigh was a veteran.

    5. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I never argued that, I just went along with the path that posed the least resistance. I say "hey, there's no nitro in hand lotion" I'm on a one-way flight to Cuba.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    6. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tim McVeigh wasn't a disabled octogenarian.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    7. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor will he ever be one. But do you think he might have mellowed with age?

    8. Re:United Police State of America by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      And they were patting down a disabled WWII vet in a wheelchair.

      You've never seen "Day of the Jackal" (the oringal version)? The asassin has a sniper rifle broken down and made into a set of crutches, for an old war veteran...

      If you;re going to search people at all, you really should be searching people with large pieces of metal piping, no matter what medals they're wearing.

      Yeah, I know, a "movie threat". Still, profiling people to wave through is as bad as profiling people to give a hard time to. Both allow an enemy to game the system

    9. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      Fortunately or unfortunately, we'll never know.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    10. Re:United Police State of America by dognts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't it great how Americans sit back and let the government do the work for the bad guys of this world. What do the "worlds baddest guys" hate the most about America? Out Constitution. What do they do to erode it. Nothing, except get our own government to do it for them. Then our government instructs us to belive we are safer from all these bad guys and if we don't go with the program they will give us someplace to stay with tree hots and a cot to learn our place. I guess we have to move to a foriegn country and be treated this way in order to get some goodie two shoe organization to notice and put pressure on the the government to stop treating thier people this way cuz its wrong. There isn't any common sense in this world anymore. Boy I wish thier were still people out there with the integrity of Washington, Reveere, Franklin, oh well back to Star Trek.

    11. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      If someone wants to do something, they're going to find a way.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    12. Re:United Police State of America by a+whoabot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you read Qutb, that so-called "grandfather" of Al-Qaeda or whatever, he has this book called Milestones, the thing he writes about America that he hates it simply because it's "un-Islamic" particularly the sexualisation and gender-mixing (that is, unrelated women and men meeting each other), and materialism of the culture. He does mention freedom though as something he hates about it, but I'm pretty sure he's talking licence regarding holy practises, not freedom in the founding fathers sense.

    13. Re:United Police State of America by aseth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They hate us for our freedoms!
      Luckily for us, we've cleverly ensured that they don't have that cause to hate us anymore! Right?

    14. Re:United Police State of America by dognts · · Score: 1

      Very good response to all of this. I wish you would expand it in the area of what can be done about it.Everyone seems to be waitung for some one else to do something cuz they don't want the three hots and a cot thats held over everyones heads. Makes you wonder what it would be like if our founding fathers felt this same way. I am sure they were facing much worse.

    15. Re:United Police State of America by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

      And they were patting down a disabled WWII vet in a wheelchair.



      You've never seen "Day of the Jackal" (the oringal version)? The asassin has a sniper rifle broken down and made into a set of crutches, for an old war veteran...



      If you;re going to search people at all, you really should be searching people with large pieces of metal piping, no matter what medals they're wearing.

      Perfectly cromulent, but you'll notice that they didn't search the tubing in the wheelchair, they patted down the old man.

      As an aside, they should know better, I've seen a dwarf on TV tell TSA agents that they should search his wheelchair, and that he's kind of insulted that they assume he's not a threat because he's a dwarf with bad knees.
      --

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

    16. Re:United Police State of America by pipatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do the "worlds baddest guys" hate the most about America? Out Constitution.

      Actually, no one outside the US cares about your constitution. We care more about how you randomly invade countries without reason, how you try to enforce your local laws and policy on weaker nations, and things like that.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    17. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      posting Anon because I have mod points already spent on this bozo.

      As much as I would like to at least partially agree that there are things to address about the US, Mods...WHY is this garbage +4 insightful?

      So much so that you overpowered -1 troll mods... So please tell me what is insightful about this comment?

    18. Re:United Police State of America by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Islamic terrorists care very much about the US Constitution, because it's against Islam, just like the laws and principles of European countries are against Islam.

    19. Re:United Police State of America by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      What do the "worlds baddest guys" hate the most about America? Out Constitution.

      That's a pretty good one ... sounds like you actually believed W's sound-bites from that speech. Which means you believed the WMD speeches and probably still do.

      The truth is, they hate that we get so many more cable channels than they do. As you alluded to with your Star Trek comment, *that* is the freedom that most Americans will be exercising today.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    20. Re:United Police State of America by dognts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good point but doesn't our constitution give us those rights that he is against? Now is the problem with this with him and his beliefs or with the American public letting our own government get away with what they do because some one like him believes what he does. Now was the constitution given to us because it was needed to protect us from some one else beliefs? I think so, but not just from foreign beliefs but from beliefs from with in our own country that could be forced upon us by the treats of punishment. I don't really need to read, not that it is a bad thing to do mind you, about someone else beleifs to have a little common sence about things. We have protected rights against our government doing some of the things they do and no one holds them accountable to that to the point every one forgets that we have them. Of course we have let them erode those rights to the point of letting them right laws protecting themselves from accountabilty. Shame on us! We the people have done this no one else and thats sad, because its we the people who are going to have to reverse it even though that means maybe breaking the law to do so. Thats the integratiy that I was referring to that out founding fathers had and that we don't have. I am all for everyone including Qtub having thier own beliefs but I am not in agreement with whats going on today. Now what is there to do about it? I know that I will probably catch alot of slack from this and thats okay maybe something else will come from it all. Something good I hope like everyone taking thier blinders of and seeing things at the most basic level and doing something about. Catch Ya Later!

    21. Re:United Police State of America by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly i am curious how effective a sniper rifle would be on a plane.

    22. Re:United Police State of America by hiimhoit · · Score: 1

      Save everything on your companies network, keep laptop free of trade secrets and sensitive data, VPN into company network when at destination - problem solved.

    23. Re:United Police State of America by dognts · · Score: 1

      I suppose that we belief the constition gives us the right to do just that doesn't enter in on anything. We do believe our way is best you know. Of course you do because you belive your way is best so it is only natural that you know this. Now you might be surprised to know that there is some of us here that actually agree with you that we don't have the right to force our beliefs onto you any more then you do with your own beliefs and forcing them on any one else. I am not saying what you think I am saying here. My belief is our government is wrong in certian things and the fault of that is because the public as a whole has let our government do as they please to include doing it to us. Our constitution protects us from that. or it did at one time. We the public have let them erode the meaning of that document to the point of even letting them write laws protecting themselve from accountabilty. I guess I am in agreement with you more then I care to say but only about certian things. You do prove my point though. Beliefs from another country should not control others in another country. Then again both side of that would have to aquire common sense in order to work right.

    24. Re:United Police State of America by Lord+Dreamshaper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think I speak for a lot of people in a lot of countries when I say my problem is that I wonder when it's our turn, if not by military means then by economic means. There's an awful lot of gas and oil up here in Canada...

      --
      When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
    25. Re:United Police State of America by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      Really? What country do you live in that we invaded? None? So then what's your problem? Oh... you want to take offense for shit that doesn't involve you directly... my mistake...
      You know, Goebbels could have made that argument to the U.S. or Britain after Germany invaded Poland. But then, Goebbels wasn't a total idiot like you obviously are. You see, people get upset about stuff like this because you shouldn't let tyranical governments do what they like.
    26. Re:United Police State of America by mordenkhai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Plans to invade Canada have been scrapped by three separate administrations. Your bilingual signs confuse us, and its cold. Please send us more "bacon" as we would like to have another Egg McMuffin, and we will conveniently forget about the everything else, eh?

    27. Re:United Police State of America by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      Save everything on your companies network, keep laptop free of trade secrets and sensitive data, VPN into company network when at destination - problem solved.

      Everything solved payment for the replacement laptop when they don't give it back...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    28. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if we followed our damned Constitution, there'd be at least a bit less of that since these actions would need approval from Congress.

      So maybe people "outside the US" do care after all? Not that it will matter - those of us inside the US don't make much of an impact either...

    29. Re:United Police State of America by arminw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      .......we the people who are going to have to reverse it even though that means maybe breaking the law to do so........

      No, we don't have to break any laws, we have to break the lawmakers by voting them out of office and putting in people who will listen to the voters, rather than money.

      One definition of insanity is: "Doing the same thing over an over again and expecting a different result each time. As long as a legislator can spend a lifetime in office, even if demonstrated to be totally in the pocket of the big moenybags, being voted in again and again, how can anything change?

      Right now a certain female wants to get into office. She and her husband are for big business, even if that big business is in opposition to the people and the little competitors.

      --
      All theory is gray
    30. Re:United Police State of America by Kazymyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...theft of laptops at airports...

      It's not theft. It's called DHS discount and it tends to occur a lot around birthdays and holidays.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    31. Re:United Police State of America by stuff+and+such · · Score: 5, Funny

      My favorite airport story still comes from my dad. He has metal pins in his ankle from a car wreck many years ago. He had done the usual 'take the shoes off' and as they waved the wand around his bare foot, it goes off. Dad says "there are metal pins in my ankle", airport genius says "can you take them out?"

      --
      my UID occurs in pi starting at the 384,199 digit after the decimal point.
    32. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plans to invade Canada have been scrapped by three separate administrations.
      IOW, plans to invade Canada have been made by three separate administrations.
    33. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      My mom got a card to show because of her hip replacement. Has the doctor's name on it and everything.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    34. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think how nice it would be if terrorists could just make up a guy to look like a disabled WWII veteran and have him get through security with no troubles. You don't know that the guy is actually a disabled veteran, just that he appears to be one. Any time you create a preferred path through security you invite the bad guys to take it. This is why racial profiling against arab-looking people is such a bad idea; not because it's racist (although that's bad enough) but because you just invite the bad guys to recruit wholesome-looking white people. And don't think that they won't be able to find any, there are plenty of malcontents of all races.

    35. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking preferred, I'm talking "maybe you shouldn't select the crippled war vet for extra screening" kind of thing.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    36. Re:United Police State of America by dognts · · Score: 1

      I am glad you posted this. It proves my point so well!

    37. Re:United Police State of America by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Ah, but anything else would be racial profiling, and we can't have that.

    38. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no one outside the US cares about your constitution. We care more about how you randomly invade countries without reason, how you try to enforce your local laws and policy on weaker nations, and things like that.

      Oh, get off your high horse. The invasion of Iraq was a stupid waste of money, but it was certainly justified.

      And the only difference I detect between Europe and America is that Europe lacks the military capability to go around invading other nations; otherwise, your average European is as narrow-minded and xenophobic as your average American.

    39. Re:United Police State of America by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      Welcome to that which the US was fighting against in the cold war.

      WELCOME TO THE CCCP COMRADES!

    40. Re:United Police State of America by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      Sleepwalking? Seriously. I would love to know how searching the contents of a laptop has got anything to do with security, or how anyone tolerates this kind of behavior. Is the laptop a bomb? No? Then I pass security. Thanks.

      If I had anything I didn't want customs looking at I could, after all, encrypt it, upload it somewhere - anywhere, and download it again when I get through customs. I could stick it on a flash drive and put it in the mail. Further, the article summary is very worrisome - how far can they go? Asking you to hand over logins to remote services such as Internet based mail is crazy.

      Customs and TSA are so out of control that I won't even use the airports here nowadays.

    41. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you want to take offense for shit that doesn't involve you directly

      Because the only people who have the right to complain about crime are the murder victims.

    42. Re:United Police State of America by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

      "And they were patting down a disabled WWII vet in a wheelchair."

      While TSA and the whole airline security process is pretty much a joke, I see nothing wrong with random searches even if it inconveniences the occasional disabled WWII vet. If you exclude classes of people from airline security, that can certainly be used against you. For instance, if being a disabled WWII vet automatically gets you by security, then disabled WWII vets could be used to help smuggle weapons or bombs onto a plane.

    43. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Actually, no one outside the US cares about your constitution. I know. Get into an argument with a European about legal gun ownership in the U.S. and they'll immediately throw out any mention you make of the second amendment as if it didn't exist or didn't matter; apparently it's not socially acceptable for Americans to tell Europeans how to live, but it's perfectly alright for Europeans to tell Americans how to live.

      This is why nobody takes Europeans seriously these days.
    44. Re:United Police State of America by dognts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe your right about we don't have to break the law. Maybe our government will quit interpreting the law in such a way that we break it anyway you look at it also. I would agree with you about breaking the lawmakers by voting if you could do that. I mean it is suppose to be the way it works right? I'll remind you of what you typed if I may? One defination of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time". Isn't that what voting is? Especially after the last election where it was taken to such great extent to prove to everyone that your vote, and or that act of voting doesn't mean anything? I agree with you about the certian party running for office. I also don't beleave our country would be best servered with the others. So where does that leave the voting process. Who really decided who we get to vote for. The people? I don't believe that for one minute. Now back to my point. Who's fault is all this. We the people because we let it happen. That includes myself by the way. So given the cercumstance as they really are what do you propose as a method of correcting this? As I have said to others there isn't any shame in resorting to violence to correct such an unjust situation, just alot off shame that that is the only avenue that has been left for one to do so to accomplish it. No I don't advocate using violence but whatelse is left. I mean really it did work in the past when our founding fathers was facing the same thing and I can't really believe anyone would shame them for it. If there be a better way I am all for it as long as it accomplishes getting America Back to being America! Somethings never change no matter how insane one feels about it!

    45. Re:United Police State of America by billcopc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The biggest problem with security is that it is put in the hands of the lowest blue-collared individuals. Very few people aspire to become security guards. They end up in that job because it pays well and only requires a high-school diploma or GED. These buffoons have been taught that explosives can be made out of common household items, but they lack that special magic we call INTELLECT to understand that the reverse is equally true.

      Yeah, so right this minute I probably have traces of crystal meth on my hands. I haven't used, sold nor produced it, but I withdrew some cash from the ATM a few minutes ago. Cletus Lawman is convinced I'm a drug-smuggling terrorist.

      The problem with the world is that stupid wins over smart every time.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    46. Re:United Police State of America by TurinPT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Islamic terrorists care very much about the US Constitution, because it's against Islam, just like the laws and principles of European countries are against Islam. Looks like someone's been watching too much american TV.
      The majority of islamic terrorist organizations actually fight to 'end the foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate'. Seriously, don't bother then and they won't bother you.

    47. Re:United Police State of America by corbettw · · Score: 1

      He does mention freedom though as something he hates about it, but I'm pretty sure he's talking licence regarding holy practises, not freedom in the founding fathers sense. Yes, because the founding fathers were completely oblivious to the concept of freedom of religion, and never once wrote anything on that topic.
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    48. Re:United Police State of America by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There's this little flaw in your presumptions...called Diebold. (Premier Vote System?)

      Every electronic voting machine on the market has, in tests, been found easy to rig. (Actually, that should be "Every electronic voting machine that's been tested", but I think they've covered all the major brands.)

      We've changed vote fixing. No longer are fraudulent elections a local phenomena. Now they're country wide. Believe the reported votes if you want to. I'm voting out of habit rather than out of belief that anybody counts it honestly.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    49. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe you actually think if they are left alone they will leave you alone. The real world doesn't work that way. I suggest you read some real history books.

    50. Re:United Police State of America by sempernoctis · · Score: 1

      We care more about how you randomly invade countries without reason
      For your information, we invade countries for their oil and for the political leverage it gives the current administration.
    51. Re:United Police State of America by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That old guy obviously hates America.

      He probably does hate what it's become. That veteran probably knows better than anyone born after the War just how much we've thrown away.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    52. Re:United Police State of America by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      We care more about how you randomly invade countries without reason, how you try to enforce your local laws and policy on weaker nations, and things like that.

      There is a very, very short list of countries that could conceivably be invaded by the United States of America. There are over 130 countries who will not be invaded by the United States, ever, at all.

      Given those ratios, you would think staying off the the USA's short list would start being a priority for certain countries, as it's clearly an achievable goal.

      I don't think that the OP was right that bad guys hate our constitution more than anything. In fact, I really don't care what they hate about us. I want them to think long and hard about what they should do to not have us bomb & invade them.

      You would have us think, presumably, about how to appease those who attack us with whatever pathetic means they have at their disposal. I would have them think about how to join the 130+ countries in the world the US would never invade- about how to appease us. Clearly it's quite possible.

      I'm not going to defend any particular invasion or foreign action. I just want to point out that avoiding the wrath of the United States(or prospect thereof) is something that the vast majority of the world does just fine. It would behoove those the US might attack to study that very, very, long list.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    53. Re:United Police State of America by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      It'd work if you could barricade yourself in the back of the plane and shoot through the wall of the cockpit...
      That and everyone'd be deaf.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    54. Re:United Police State of America by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see it coming now... Institutions in the U.S. who choose to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing solar, wind, nuclear, and other alternative energy sources to replace petroleum based ones will be accused of trying to "invade Canada via economic means" by devaluing one of their natural resources. Or, perhaps the U.S. will be accused of "invading Canada via economic means" when worldwide drug prices climb (or new drug development drops off) after the U.S. institutes price controls on drugs which results in consumers in the U.S. no longer funding development of drugs to the benefit of the rest of the world.

      Come on, how can Canada be invaded by "economic means" by ANY other country. If Canada's government and citizens don't want to sign contracts with U.S. government and citizens to exchange goods and services, no one is going to make them.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    55. Re:United Police State of America by budgenator · · Score: 1

      One definition of insanity is: "Doing the same thing over an over again and expecting a different result each time."
      but this time we are going to do the thing that didn't work harder than last time; that should fix it!

      One line I aways remembered was from von Clauswitz in his book On War"Never put additional effort into a failed stroke", people seem to do that a lot lately.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    56. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that not a legitimate question ? The 'genius' as you call him, is not a doctor. He is simply asking a question. And a simple yes or no question at that. all the guy wants to do is wave the wand over your dad and not have it beep. When it beeps thats more work for him. If your dad answered yes and was able to remove them , then he could wave his wand and not have it beep. If he says no , then there is most likely some other process he would need to go through.

    57. Re:United Police State of America by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      I suppose it'd be useful in a conspiracy to shoot people on the ground from 30,000 ft

      Oh sorry TSA. I'm giving the enemies of America ideas.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    58. Re:United Police State of America by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      The majority of islamic terrorist organizations actually fight to 'end the foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate'. Seriously, don't bother then and they won't bother you.

      The existence of non-Islamic countries is, by definition, a threat to Islam; the terrorist organizations are merely working their way down the list of threats, starting with the ones that exhibit the most willingness and ability to coerce other countries into removing the Sharia from its natural place as the foundation for all law and government.

    59. Re:United Police State of America by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      Jesus. Youre naive. They dont hate America for its freedom nor its written constitution. Neither are they jealous of the US and its wealth. Muslims hate America because of their military presence in Islamic countries and because of US support of Israel's occupation of Palestine and Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.

      Do you know how I know thats why Al-quaida attacked the US?

      BECAUSE THATS WHAT THEY FUCKING SAID.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    60. Re:United Police State of America by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Exactly! You know, we suffer the same threats and danger from diabled WWII veterans as we do from Middle Easterners.

      Those damn Veterans, Norwegians, Swedes, Canadians, and Finnish are the most evil of the evil though. They could bomb the US at any minute, and preach violence, death, and destruction against the US and it's allies. Better search them double.

      Oh!..... And don't forget those conniving Dutch bastards too!

      Who's threatening us? Muslims / Middle Easterners.
      Who poses the greatest threat? Muslims / Middle Easterners
      Who's preaching for the death and destruction of the USA? Muslims / Middle Easterners
      So who does it make the most sense to search at the airport? Muslims / Middle Easterners

      "Profiling" is the most efficient, and logical, way to find what you are looking for. Call it evil or whatever you want, but it is simply the most efficient, and logical, way to find what you want. People don't understand, we are not being threatened by Mexicans, Irish, or the Dutch. We are being threatened by Muslim Middle Easterners. It's not rocket science.

      Ten bucks says some Left-Wing "Group Hug" Nutjob mods this down.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    61. Re:United Police State of America by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      I think the best part of this story is the fact that it gets modded "70% Informative, 30% Funny." Like thousands of Slashdot users are thinking, "okay, if I want to get through the security checkpoint faster, I need to take out any metal pins in my joints." ;)

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    62. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A class of people which never gets selected for secondary screening is a preferred class of people and can be taken advantage of. (This assumes, of course, that secondary screening actually accomplishes something useful. But if it doesn't then why do it to anyone?)

    63. Re:United Police State of America by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Actually, no one outside the US cares about your constitution. We care more about how you randomly invade countries without reason, how you try to enforce your local laws and policy on weaker nations, and things like that.

      I hate to break the news to you but the US had reason to invade Iraq based on intelligence gathered by various agencies. Our laws aren't being enforced over there. Many countries share many basic laws because they are just that, basic. A basic set of laws help keep order from turning into chaos or chaos turning into more chaos. By helping out a weaker country the country becomes stronger. Iraq's economy is much better now than it was 5 years ago. The people are happier, they are safer, and things like that.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    64. Re:United Police State of America by earlymon · · Score: 1

      OK - much as I hate to just enter to equivalent polemics, I'd think Randy Newman's song at the Apple Keynote is relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Eg7fQ7P8g

      Americans are afforded the opportunity to publicly protest and try to change their government when they believe it fucks up. And a lot of Americans feel that way and act that way.

      The guy that made the remark that you responded to is among the many in America trying to sort out why 9/11 happened in the first place. You might have tried to postulate that our leaders randomly invade countries without reason, etc., but you personalized our country (yepper, I'm a Yank) as a single-minded individual.

      America's actions - based on our bad politics - may seem insane or uncouth - but it is never random.

      Why were we in Iraq in the first place - in the '90s? Kuwait was overrun. Why was Kuwait overrun? Perhaps because they were drilling sideways into Iraq's oil - we're not completely sure - "excuse me"s to those who were - because I don't know all the facts myself. Why didn't we take out Saddam and his regime then? Because the president at the time recognized his Constitutional limits under his edict to act.

      You can simplify it all down to oil and you'd be right. We use oil - a lot. Last I'd checked, our oil consumption boils down to supporting our agribusiness - we do tend to feed a great deal of the world - and our military. You may even charge that our military is protecting our big business. OK, even if the statement's not even wrong, I'll play along and postulate that you don't like our military protecting the agribusiness that feeds so much of the world.

      Where have some large American grain shipments gone? Throughout the '70s, it went to the Soviet Union - oddly enough, we were held hostage by Soviet policies at the UN, all the while doing our level best to feed their people so desperation wouldn't lead to Armageddon. How about North Korea? Same thing - they've been in famine, we've been trying to feed them, their leaders take the food, and indoctrinate their people to believe that we're going to eat their babies - literally.

      George W has a clear history of not tolerating anyone who hurts his dad. Saddam hurt him politically and later tried to assassinate him - Clinton, BTW, responded with a small flood of Tomahawks to that. We all knew - or rather - many of us knew, but others learned the hard way - that Saddam not playing ball with Dubya was going to be his end.

      I've talked to more than a fair share of Middle Easterners. Are you even aware that the popular belief was that America didn't oust Saddam because we lost the war there in the '90s? Are you even aware that Saddam believed that he could intimate that he had WOMDs as a bluff against Dubya?

      Our invasion there was many things, but it wasn't random, neither was it without reason. And I don't mean reason as in have a reason or have an excuse, I mean reason as in a reasoning process was involved. It may have been GIGO, it may have been immoral, but it was perfectly predictable. Random and without reason is never predictable.

      Tell me truthfully - who in the world didn't believe or wasn't worried or never considered - that there was a danger of America invading Iraq the day Dubya took the oath of office?

      Maybe you're alive today to post here because our policies of the past prevented a nuclear holocaust. Just maybe. And maybe those policies came about because we bear the burden of unleashing nuclear hell on the world and would like to avoid it at all costs - for ourselves and others. Maybe we have a conscience about that and have tried to elect appropriately responsible governments to curtail that hell. Just maybe.

      Everybody likes to be the saint. We're not. Neither are we simply a bunch of madmen or Satans.

      I had an altercation in an Asian bar where a European guy and his buddies wanted to tangle with me and m

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    65. Re:United Police State of America by livewire98801 · · Score: 1

      I never put pins in my joints. I use them to pack a bowl occasionally tho. Far easier to smoke if there's no pesky metal in the middle :)

      --
      "He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
    66. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but maybe it was Chinese-manufactured hand lotion. People don't eat hand lotion, so they have to make it unhealthy somehow, and that's done by adding nitro. Works fine in most cases, just don't rub your hands together too rapidly, or use it for lathering up other appendages.

    67. Re:United Police State of America by dognts · · Score: 1

      I now understand why it is everyone uses forms as a place to post there veiws and treat things as one big joke. I apoligize for posting and most of all I apoligize for taken any thing here seriously. Now for all the English Majors who don't live in the Unided States you can now correct my spelling. I hope at least that point was clear enough not to be missunderstood. Yeah right!!!

    68. Re:United Police State of America by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 1
      Actually, no one outside the US cares about your constitution.

      This deserves emphasis.

      Political debates with a certain kind of American are like science debates with creationists. They say "but it's in the Constitution!" just like "but the Bible says ...!"

      Stop fetishizing a document so much. It doesn't matter what it says. What matters is what your army and your spies and your politicians do. If they actually ever acted in accordance with your Consitution, you might have some kind of a point, but even then, all you'd have managed to prove is that your Constition is encouraging people to act immorally and therefore should be changed.

    69. Re:United Police State of America by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Enclosed space, supersonic round.

      You could deafen half the plane in an instant, some of them permanently. On a large plane, this could conceivably include at least one musician.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    70. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      My position is that it's a farce in the first place and that was just a symptom. I don't think people should be given preferential treatment, I just think the current screening process shouldn't exist in the first place.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    71. Re:United Police State of America by (negative+video) · · Score: 1

      If someone wants to do something, they're going to find a way.

      Provided they are skilled, lucky, a good strategist, well funded, cool under pressure, and so forth. Invalidate any one of those prerequisites and you stop a significant fraction of attacks, saving lives and money. Security need not be 100% flawless to be profitable.

    72. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      That depends on how throughly confident you are in the incompetence of your fellow man.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    73. Re:United Police State of America by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The obvious answer to this is, have they started patting down and strip searching children or are they too afraid of accusations of child molestation and the resulting civil suits. So where should they be hiding stuff now, hmm ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    74. Re:United Police State of America by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The majority of islamic terrorist organizations actually fight to 'end the foreign influence in Muslim countries and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate'.

      Which means executing women for being raped, for example. The creation of an Islamic caliphate is not a good thing in any way, shape or form. I don't believe in your moral relativism.

      Seriously, don't bother then and they won't bother you.

      Do you honestly believe that?

    75. Re:United Police State of America by FLEB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And they were patting down a disabled WWII vet in a wheelchair. I told the fresh out of high school kid that he should be embarrassed.

      If you're going to have random (or universal) searches, though, they should always be at least random. If you have exemption criteria that mandates disregarding a "hit", then you're allowing a loophole that becomes a known "pass". How hard would it be for the ever-present "potential terrorist" to fake being a wheelchair-bound war vet? For that matter, is it completely outside the bounds that a wheelchair-bound vet might have terrorist intentions?

      Admittedly, I'm not that well-traveled, but from the couple times I've been to the Cancun airport in Mexico, I really liked their random screening method for customs. There's a big traffic light and a button, presumably on a randomizer. Hit the button: if it buzzes and goes red, your stuff gets the high-intensity search. Not only does it give an exciting game-show contestant mentality to the whole thing, it also makes it clear to everyone involved that it's just plain luck-of-the-draw, whoever's chosen.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    76. Re:United Police State of America by Lord+Dreamshaper · · Score: 1

      It's a simple concept: we're a nation of exporters. Oil, gas, wheat, lumber, various minerals, fuzzy bunny slippers...you might not be able to afford to stop doing business with us altogether, but an embargo on any particular commodity under the guise of fair trade/national security/cultural integrity/my-horoscope-said-so will likely hurt us more than it hurts you

      Remember americans not buying french products like a good french wine and making asses themselves by only eating "freedom fries"? Don't know if that particular stupidity hurt the french economy, but the intent was certainly there...did I mention the french were right, there were no WMD? Oh, wait, Bush & co already knew that...At the very least, Britain knew that WMD paranoia was just that: paranoia, but they played along while america belittled the french...like I said, most countries are probably wondering when it's their turn to "benefit" from american friendship and support...and it makes us nervous...you're the best friend that we don't leave alone with our 16 y/o daughter...

      --
      When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
    77. Re:United Police State of America by FLEB · · Score: 1

      It's for enhanced stability, like the toothpick through the center of a sandwich.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    78. Re:United Police State of America by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Wow. I was right!

      (acts suprised)

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    79. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fairly certain that nitroglycerin is not present in hand lotions, although one of the major components used in its manufacture is.

    80. Re:United Police State of America by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Hijacking a plane is not an ordinary occurance, and it's not as if terrorist groups are running through hijackers so fast that they can't be picky. It's also not as if a terrorist organization has to send a representative majority of its people onto a flight in order to do some damage. Although the majority of the threat could come from middle-eastern Muslims, all it takes is one sympathetic Swede, Canadian, American, or Finn, if everyone knows that those folks can dance right through the line. Plus, it's not like middle-eastern Muslims, or any one group, has a complete monopoly on terrorism.

      Profiling can't help you find what you're looking for if you're not absolutely sure what you're looking for (and what you're looking for knows you're looking for it).

      Goddammit, I fed the trolls. But I spent all this time typing. Might as well.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    81. Re:United Police State of America by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Look, I know this isn't the popular viewpoint here, but I think I can explain the agent's actions:

      "Maria Udy, a marketing executive with a global travel management firm in Bethesda, said her company laptop was seized by a federal agent as she was flying from Dulles International Airport to London in December 2006. Udy, a British citizen, said the agent told her he had 'a security concern' with her.

      His 'security concern' was completely real. He was concerned that his level of financial security did not allow him to own such a nice laptop as hers.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    82. Re:United Police State of America by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, throwing in the 2nd Amendment alone as an argument for could be seen as a form of either circular reference or depending on the infallibility of tradition, simply because it exists. Just because the 2nd Amendment exists doesn't mean that it's good or necessary.

      Personally, I'm for it, as I understand the need for the populace to have the right to self-protection, should the shit hit the fan, and even to instigate such shit/fan interaction against a tyrannical government if need be. Do I see government overthrow realistically happening? Not really likely, without some external agent getting the ball rolling first. Perhaps if the power went out. I agree with the statement (although I'm admittedly flimsy on backing) that much of the "gun violence problem" could be helped with a more universal right to well-trained and respectful gun carrying.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    83. Re:United Police State of America by Benaiah · · Score: 1

      Sorry I couldn't see your spelling mistakes through the total lack of layout to any of your posts.

      Giant walls of text aren't pleasant to read and impair comprehension of your points.

    84. Re:United Police State of America by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....Every electronic voting machine on the market has, in tests, been found easy to rig.........

      Here we still use a paper ballot, sort of like the test forms for standard multiple guess tests they used in schools. Everyone gets one form to mark and place in the ballot box. Then if there is a dispute in the counting of those little physical black dots, the paper is still in existence and they can count those little dots more carefully, again, hopefully getting the correct result. Physical black dots can be changed also, but only one at a time. It is usually also easy to tell if the little black dots have been tampered with. Little magnetized dots on a disk can be changed en masse and leave not trace they were altered.

      So much of you and your money is reduced to a collection of bits represented by a few nanometers of magnetism these days. Why should that not inevitably become the case with votes? Somewhere the government keeps some magnetized spots that determine whether you get to board an airliner. Somewhere there are some magnetic impressions that determine whether you get to drive a car, get a loan or job. Any of these can and some have been messed up and often nobody seems to know how or why. Ephemeral bits, easily changed, without a trace, rule our lives. You may have already experienced the helplessness that ensued when those bits were suddenly inaccessible due to a power or other failure. You could not even obtain a loaf of bread at the supermarket or a few gallons of gas to get you back home. That is a fact of our time and nothing will change that. Live with it.

      A friend of mine asked for a certain auto part. The clerk checked the computer and then told the friend, "The computer says we are out of stock on this items", but then he said, "but I know I saw two of those on the shelf in the back", but quickly added, "however I can't sell one to you because the computer won't let me until the boss corrects the computer." My friend was forced to drive to another parts store.

      --
      All theory is gray
    85. Re:United Police State of America by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Honestly i am curious how effective a sniper rifle would be on a plane.

      Not very; but that was the movie. My point was that a wheelchair could conceal all kinds of things, especially metal weapons -- guns, knives, etc.

    86. Re:United Police State of America by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No one's expecting the 'genius' to be a doctor, but I think it is reasonable to expect them to have a slight bit of competence. When someone says they have pins in their joint, a competent person would know that those are surgically implanted. No, some joe off the street might not know this, but that's not what "competence" is; it's knowing how to do your job. And when your job involves checking thousands of people in an airport, surely you're bound to come across a fair number of people with metal surgical implants, so that you should be familiar with the idea of surgical pins, and not need it explained to you. Maybe if it was the guy's first day on the job, he could be excused for this, but otherwise, no.

    87. Re:United Police State of America by jdickey · · Score: 1

      The last time I was at LAX, I saw the TSA security theatrical workers doing that to an old guy in a wheelchair. When I asked, they said it was "policy" for wheelchairs. (Never mind that it was an AIRPORT courtesy wheelchair; that was obviously too subtle a point for the insecurity forces to deal with.) One more proof, if any were needed, that the post-1989 definition of the "Free World" has changed to "territories not under sovereignty or control of what once was the United States of America". :(

    88. Re:United Police State of America by Elbow+Macaroni · · Score: 1

      Yeah and they obviously don't know how to use the power. Last time I was at an airport I had to explain to a security person 3 times why me and my daughter had different names. She couldn't seem to figure out that we were different people and then when she did then she couldn't figure out what our names were even though our names were on our ID's. It's a big joke. They shake down people they know don't have bombs and let the bombers through because it would be racist not to. God knows my 80+ year old Grandma could've been a terrorist when they frisked her. What a joke those security people are.

      --
      -------------------------------------
      Technically, we are beyond survival.
    89. Re:United Police State of America by MadCat · · Score: 1

      Right, so basically as long as everyone else does what Daddy USA says, all will be well.

      Arrogant much?

      It's that exact same attitude that draws the ire of many nations, even if some are smart enough not to act on it because they know that it won't do them any good to bitch at the schoolyard bully.

      Heck, in Europe, Americans and America in general aren't held in very high regard. Similarities to 1960's Soviet Russia are often brought up... ironic really, the land of the free and the home of the brave has turned into a parody of what it once opposed during the cold war.

      --
      There is no sig...
    90. Re:United Police State of America by radimvice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These buffoons have been taught that explosives can be made out of common household items, but they lack that special magic we call INTELLECT to understand that the reverse is equally true.

      Holy crap, common household items can made out of explosives? Please, tell me more!

    91. Re:United Police State of America by gronofer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The biggest problem with security is that it is put in the hands of the lowest blue-collared individuals.

      No, this is just a symptom of the biggest problem, which is that the people at the top are completely clueless.

      Check out this article which shows just how bad it's getting.

    92. Re:United Police State of America by Bega · · Score: 1

      The problem with the world is that stupid wins over smart every time.

      Obligatory quote for this, I can't help myself, sorry, so please bear with me while I take a karma hit:

      Every time somebody invents something idiot-proof, somebody invents a better idiot.
      --

      THIS IS THE INTERNET. PLEASE PICK UP YOUR SERIOUS BUSINESS SUIT AT THE FRONT COUNTER.
    93. Re:United Police State of America by Zemran · · Score: 1

      When there was a supposed terrorist threat at Heathrow airport the British government sent in tanks... What good is a tank at an airport???

      With all this harassing everybody, we have become the tools of the terrorists. Flying used to be fun. It was a happy start to a trip. Now it is a pain in the rear. I hate all the BS that I have to go through and most of it is just political BS where they want to show that they are doing something rather than want to do something to solve the problem. Good security has always been possible. When was the last time an Israeli plane was blown up? Do you really think they don't want to blow up Israeli planes? No, the Israelis have quietly and without a fuss been implementing good security since long before the twin towers were destroyed. So the US is crap at security and now the whole world has to suffer stupid and useless RFID passports and walking barefoot through terminals to make it look as if we are now doing something.

      It does not help security in any way if I take my laptop out of my bag, the x-ray machine could see it just as well inside the bag. It is just a stupid hoop that we have to jump through like performing seals to make the plebs think that the government is doing something. Why can't we take a bottle of water with us on the plane? Has a plane ever been blown up with a bottle of water? No, all bombs so far have been solid and they are normally in the checked in luggage where you can have a bottle of water. It is just political smoke and mirrors to keep the plebs smiling and voting for the morons that lead them.

      It is time that we stood up to the terrorists and said that we are not going live like scared rabbits. Let us have fun again. Yes we should x-ray all bags and we should arrive on time to have our bags checked etc. but drop the BS and let us live like free people.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    94. Re:United Police State of America by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      Yes. Seems the US of A is one of those countries where an uniform is a license to steal.

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    95. Re:United Police State of America by Tsagadai · · Score: 1

      Turn in your geek card at the door and prepare for a week long intensive MacGyver training session.

    96. Re:United Police State of America by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm on a one-way flight to Cuba

      Ya know, you make it harder for us to be taken seriously when you make statements like that, right?

      Things are pretty bad right now, but they've been worse in the past. They will get better soon.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    97. Re:United Police State of America by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      The internet. Serious business.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    98. Re:United Police State of America by chrish · · Score: 1

      If they're RIAA "musicians" it wouldn't affect their future albums.

      --
      - chrish
    99. Re:United Police State of America by networkconsultant · · Score: 0

      once you get the windows open you now have a vantage point at 30,000 feet, rapid de-pressurization to strike fear into your co passengers and a vehicle traveling at 350+ KM /h your target won't know what hit them, then again getting a firing solution might be a problem.

    100. Re:United Police State of America by intheshelter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heck I'm an American and your response is pure poppycock. Let's examine a few fallacies. . .

      "Why didn't we take out Saddam and his regime then? Because the president at the time recognized his Constitutional limits under his edict to act."

      -His Constitutional limits prevented him? Duh! If he was following our constitution he wouldn't have been there in the first place because Congress had not declared war. Our leaders don't give one whit about the Constitution unless it somehow personally threatens them with jail time. Our Constitution has been a paper tiger for quite a while now.

      "I'll play along and postulate that you don't like our military protecting the agribusiness that feeds so much of the world."

      - So it's OK for us to invade someone because we feed part of the world? That's about the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.

      "George W has a clear history of not tolerating anyone who hurts his dad."

      - Sooooo we invaded a country because Bush Jr. wants avenge his daddy. The same daddy who (contrary to your quote above) was NOT hurt by Saddam. Again, the stupidity of this justification can not be measured with today's technology.

      "Our invasion there was many things, but it wasn't random, neither was it without reason. And I don't mean reason as in have a reason or have an excuse, I mean reason as in a reasoning process was involved. It may have been GIGO, it may have been immoral, but it was perfectly predictable. Random and without reason is never predictable."

      - You silly philosophy lesson is a nice attempt to minimize what everyone is saying, but unfortunately it sounds like a complete diversion because you fail to address what everyone is saying. Our invasion was completely without reason. Don't try and pull some amateur psych explanation to justify it. The only reasoning process involved in this invasion was how to dupe the public into thinking this was justified. You obviously fell for it.

      "Are you even aware that the popular belief was that America didn't oust Saddam because we lost the war there in the '90s?"

      - Oh, well, then by all means lets invade them and kill Saddam so we can save face and say we won! How does the popular Arab belief that we lost have anything to do with the fact that Iraq posed no threat to us? Let them believe what they want, I don't care.

      One thing is becoming quite clear. George Bush has killed far more people with his policies than Osama bin laden, and Bush's policies are no more valid than bin Laden's.

    101. Re:United Police State of America by MrKaos · · Score: 1
      It is time that we stood up to the government and said that we are not going live like scared rabbits....drop the BS and let us live like free people.

      Fixed that for you.

      It's the government people are afraid of and whilst the people are afraid of the government the government has the power to implement these procedures. In ALL western democracies the government should be afraid of the people and until that day happens get used to long lines at the airport and da man with latex glove.

      Fuck the tewworists, fuck security, I'll take my chances being blown up by some dick-head rather than live on my knees. Freedom isn't for the meek, it's for people who take ownership of their rights. The electorate can choose either complacency or vigilance but the result is the electorate gets the type of government the electorate deserves.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    102. Re:United Police State of America by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Hahaha! I could have wrote your post myself, it's so close to what I would have said!

      On a side note, does anyone know where a disillusioned American can move to before our ailing Constitution is completely dead and I'm not allowed to leave?

    103. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank Tom Daschle for his federalizing of airport screeners. 28,000 morons were hired in favor of private companies.
      Because..afterall, nobody gets things done better than unionized g'ment workers with no liability right?

      (Oops.. I must be mod'd down cuz this post contains a fact that discloses democrat/union causes. And we can't have that now can we?)

    104. Re:United Police State of America by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      IOW, plans to invade Canada have been made by no fewer than three separate administrations. FTFY
      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    105. Re:United Police State of America by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Yup, I read that too.

      What it comes down to is: the guy whose 'natural level' would be doing security checks at airports, has made it to the White House and is responsible for policy.

      There must be some electioneering reason behind this but I can't work out what it is. What the US Administration is asking for is basically not feasable and there must be some reason why they pulled this stunt. Who gains in the prezidentchul race when the EU says "can't do, won't do"?

      For the record, I can't see McCain wanting to play games like that.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    106. Re:United Police State of America by HiroProtagonist · · Score: 1

      It's called the Anarchist's Cookbook, google it. Now go start experimenting and blow yourself up.

      --
      --Remove chicken to e-mail
    107. Re:United Police State of America by revscat · · Score: 1

      We are being threatened by Muslim Middle Easterners. It's not rocket science.

      So ok, we start doing that. Then they pick up on it, and hire some down-and-out Belgian with a smack habit to do their dirty work for them. Whee.

      a) Profiling is fucking stupid. b) I'm not such a pussy as to want to sacrifice my freedoms because of the actions of a small group of fanatics. Fuck them, and fuck anyone who buys into the scare mongering.

      Including you, natch.

      Ten bucks says some Left-Wing "Group Hug" Nutjob mods this down.

      I would have, but the reasons are far simpler: you are a gangrene infested penis.

    108. Re:United Police State of America by j_166 · · Score: 1

      "It's called the Anarchist's Cookbook, google it. Now go start experimenting and blow yourself up."

      I don't think you understood the parent. Go back and reread it. He is expressing surprise that common household items could be made out of explosives, like the GP said. And that is indeed shocking. That would mean my stereo, for example, could be made out of C4.

    109. Re:United Police State of America by j_166 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the private companies have to eventually bid the jobs down to minimum wage though to compete? Then you would have the same kind of morons who flip your burgers searching you instead of the guys who flunked out of the police academy. Or worse, they'd find a way to outsource it to India...

      (Oops.. I must be mod'd down cuz this post contains a fact that the free market isn't the perfect magic solution to absolutely everything. And we can't have that now can we?)

    110. Re:United Police State of America by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would mean my stereo, for example, could be made out of C4.

      "This one goes to 11."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    111. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the private companies have to eventually bid the jobs down to minimum wage though to compete? Then you would have the same kind of morons who flip your burgers searching you instead of the guys who flunked out of the police academy. Or worse, they'd find a way to outsource it to India...

      (Oops.. I must be mod'd down cuz this post contains a fact that the free market isn't the perfect magic solution to absolutely everything. And we can't have that now can we?) We could debate the details (And you'd lose)..but I'll go straight for the 'common sense' response.
      Give me ONE g'ment take over that has been successful?
      Perhaps then you might have some creditability.

      Its odd tho..while most people whine about the performance of the screeners, they will continue to back g'ment control and dis the free market every chance they get.
      Thats rather schiziod if you ask me.. (But then again, lefties excel at such hypocrisy)

      Oops.. A free market challenge to g'ment control. (Mod me down.)

    112. Re:United Police State of America by bumski · · Score: 1

      Ah, so that's why it's called a boom box.

    113. Re:United Police State of America by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Given those ratios, you would think staying off the the USA's short list would start being a priority for certain countries, as it's clearly an achievable goal.
      You make the US sound like a drunk, abusive husband telling his wife he's sorry she made him hit her.

      Better still would be to just not invade countries that never fucking attacked us in the first place, but I wouldn't expect a warmongering hawk like yourself to understand that concept.
      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    114. Re:United Police State of America by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
      an embargo on any particular commodity under the guise of fair trade/national security/cultural integrity/my-horoscope-said-so will likely hurt us more than it hurts you

      A recent case in point was the softwood lumber tariffs instituted by the USA on Canadian softwood. This was a protectionist measure to help US softwood producers. It resulted in more expensive lumber for US customers, and was devastating to Canadian producers. The USA sneezes and we get a cold.

    115. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an aside, they should know better, I've seen a dwarf on TV tell TSA agents that they should search his wheelchair, and that he's kind of insulted that they assume he's not a threat because he's a dwarf with bad knees.
      Maybe they watch the show and know that Matt Roloff wouldn't make it halfway through his terrorist plot before he gets caught up in plans to build a replica of the LAX control tower on his farm. The dude has the attention span of a deranged sparrow.
    116. Re:United Police State of America by j_166 · · Score: 1

      I'll give you several:

      The Interstate Road System
      Social Security (for the past several decades, future notwithstanding)
      The Internet
      Operations of The Hoover Dam
      various offices of the Department of The Interior
      The Department of Energy
      arguably the Department of Education, if you consider that private companies wouldn't provide any education at all to poor folks
      local government transport authorities in some towns
      Prisons and law enforcement in general
      The Military
      Health Care for poor folks

      As a bonus, here are some things that private companies have screwed up:

      Voting machines
      Just about anything Halliburton touches in Iraq
      Private Mercenaries in Iraq
      Airlines (when was the last time government run airlines in countries that have them filed for bankruptcy?)
      Just about anything having to do with the environment
      Distribution of energy (Enron)
      Telephone communications prior to 1980 or whenever Bell was busted up
      Health Care for poor folks

      Face it, most sane people recognize that there are some things that private companies do well, and there are some things that either the government does well, or just plain has to do because nobody else would do them otherwise. I know I'm not going to convince you, because as an absolutist, you only see things in black and white, but the world does in fact consists of varying shades of gray.

    117. Re:United Police State of America by jabelli · · Score: 1

      "No, you already confiscated my pocket knife."

    118. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Interstate Road System - Generally contracted out. Engineering company I used to work for designed several segments of road/bridges in PA.
      The Internet - University and private industry played a large part in this too.
      Prisons and law enforcement - My wife works in a prison as a nurse (a contracted company). Not sure if any of the guards are contracted or if they all fall under the state.
      The military - Numerous contractors support military operations too (including Haliburton listed by you). The military/civilians have had their share of screw ups too (toxic sites, inhumane acts, etc..). Note - The military overall is good, it just isn't perfect.

      Sure, lots of private companies have screwed up too, but there are many that do a good job too.
      Mij

    119. Re:United Police State of America by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "all it takes is one sympathetic Swede, Canadian, American, or Finn, if everyone knows that those folks can dance right through the line."

      "thanks to a tip from unidentified sources, airport screeners now on the lookout for Julie Andrews."

    120. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a country where a uniform IS NOT a license to steal?

    121. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea for patting down cripples, little kids, and the mentally disabled, is because of the fear that terrorists will notice that people in wheelchairs aren't patted down, and they will offer that person a million dollars to blow up the plane. A gift for the old guy's family. He'll be dead soon anyway, so why not take the money.

      I'd say the disabled WWII vet in a wheelchair didn't mind being patted down. I'm sure he perfectly understands why.

      Most everyone hates the TSA but the other choice is not checking and having a plane blow up. Sure, there's ways around it, and some of the TSA rules are stupid (3.4 ounces or less!), but it's an attempt to make it harder for bombs.

      They are hit or miss. It's the government. The flip flops check was because it's easier to pass a hard rule (no shoes), then to trust the uneducated to make a decision over which shoes are safe, and which ones aren't.

    122. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA isn't allowed to unionize. I work for the TSA. High turnover rate, lots of on the job injuries, we get bitched at by the airlines, the public and the gub'mint supervisors. We have to test every 6 months (was 3 months) and people can, and do, lose their jobs. Even if you're a supervisor who doesn't work with what you're being tested for. Some airports have high employee morale, some have low. It's a new federal department and we're working out bugs.

      We're there to make it more difficult for another 9/11. Bitch all you want, we've got a job to do.

    123. Re:United Police State of America by Asphalt · · Score: 1
      Provided they are skilled, lucky, a good strategist, well funded

      How much money does a plane ticket cost these days???

      All this "funding" stuff seems like a bunch of crap to me used for purposed other than security.

      Tim McVeigh used a Ryder truck full of cow shit for crying out loud.

    124. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Middle Eastern terrorists don't give a flying fuck in a rolling donut about American "freedom". We're thousands of miles away from them. They just want us to stop meddling in their business. Sadly for them, they have oil, so it's our business too. If they didn't have oil, we wouldn't give a rats ass. Compare Kuwait with Rwanda.

    125. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the tewworists, fuck security, I'll take my chances being blown up by some dick-head rather than live on my knees. Freedom isn't for the meek, it's for people who take ownership of their rights. The electorate can choose either complacency or vigilance but the result is the electorate gets the type of government the electorate deserves.

      It must've killed you when Ron Paul dropped out after his amazing series of 4% in the votes. Too bad Ayn Rand isn't alive and running!

    126. Re:United Police State of America by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 1

      I think TSA is so incompetent that we would be better off if ALL the TSA employees quit. The cockpit doors have been locked. That is the ONLY thing that has improved our airline safety. Every thing else is just a joke. Worse actually, because you are wasting tax payer money, slowing down commerce, and in many cases infringing on American Rights.

    127. Re:United Police State of America by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      It's a Trend... Obviously, you haven't played Half-Life mod packs, hehehe.

      IIRC, I was sniping inside, too, for a while. Then I think I switched to shotguns. But, really, in the dark, with a sniper Night Vision scope, picking off SWAT teams or ter'rists is easier, again, since the lights sometimes went out. If you HAD NVG, then you didn't need sniping rifles...

      But, then, what trumps a sniper rifle at the end of a stump below the hip? (Yeh, a Borg weapon...)

      But, by the same logic of patting down veterans, I wonder if the TSA will institute a Don't Ask, Don't Tail/Tell/Tale policy or if they'll take the high ground and show their ability to not use sexual orientation as a deciding factor for job placement.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    128. Re:United Police State of America by DougInKY · · Score: 1

      But it is Nitroglycerine that is in my little red spray bottle that I carry for chest pain. I don't understand how they make it stable enough that it doesn't explode in my pocket but there you are - every heart patient a terrorist right? -- Jesus saves. Buddha makes incremental backups.

      --
      Nothing remains as constant as change.
    129. Re:United Police State of America by matria · · Score: 1

      "Medicinal nitroglycerin is chemically identical to the explosive, but it is safe because it is far more dilute than pure nitroglycerin, and is bound to other inert substances that disrupts its perfect oxygen balance."

      It's also put in condoms to improve erectile function, as it's a vasodilator.

      http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4829991.html
      http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5741511-description.html
      http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_health_story_skin/529240%3Fformat=html

    130. Re:United Police State of America by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It's called the Anarchist's Cookbook, google it. Now go start experimenting and blow yourself up.

      Ah, someone else has figured out why TACB and all those alleged "Al Quaeda Training Manuals" are easily found on the internet. Good, that makes two us us unlikely to blow up our own houses while trying to build a city-buster bomb.
      Red mercury, anyone?
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    131. Re:United Police State of America by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Ah, but red mercury exists.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    132. Re:United Police State of America by j_166 · · Score: 1

      Ah see, there is the rub though. How many things does the government contract out to 'no bid' contractors and or heavily regulate? That isn't exactly a good example of the almighty free market in action.

      Look, I'm not trying to say that the government is good at everything or private companies suck at everything. Just that some things make sense for the government to run/regulate, just as much as sometimes the almighty free market is good at running/regulating things. In particular, the free market happens to suck at things that have to get done but have no clear profit motive, and the government happens to be better at things where the market would be forced to cut corners to compete.

      Even though they are arguably failing in the practical implementation of the TSA, I believe it is ultimately better off in the hands of the government (or heavily regulated contractors with clear government mandated guidelines, which isn't the free market at work either way).

    133. Re:United Police State of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technocracy ftw.

    134. Re:United Police State of America by FLEB · · Score: 1

      You know, that makes me want to do "Checkpoint! The Musical" next time I'm at the airport.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    135. Re:United Police State of America by billcopc · · Score: 1

      We're there to make it more difficult for another 9/11.

      Transport safety is not going to prevent another 9/11. If you don't want the rest of the world to blow your people up, then tell the Bushes to stop fucking with everyone.

      Does China have a problem with the middle east ? Does Russia have a problem with the middle east ? No. Do they both have a problem with the USA ? Yes. Lowest common denominator.

      Crippling your own civilians isn't going to make your borders any safer. All it does is piss off the locals and generate unrest. The next terrorist attack will probably come from within. Hate doesn't care which country it's born in.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    136. Re:United Police State of America by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Ah, but red mercury exists.[link to "Cinnabar" on Wikipedia]


      < SIGH > I was expecting that.

      With a tag like "RockDoctor", I'm ashamed to admit that I don't have a sample of cinnabar in my rock pile. But I am trying to persuade the wife that Almaden is a suitable place for a holiday. Maybe combine it with some gypsum caving around Sorbas ... yeah, I've heard worse ideas.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    137. Re:United Police State of America by wellingj · · Score: 1

      The problem with the government vs. free market issue is that even if the free market can do it better government will never step aside once it has a Department.
      Ronald Regan once said that a Government Department is the closest thing to immortal life on this earth.

  2. Customs agent's kid . . . needed a laptop . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . this is all part of that One Laptop Per Child thingie . . .happens all the time at airports, or roadside checkpoints in Africa . . .

    . . . nothing new here, move along, sans laptop . . .

    1. Re:Customs agent's kid . . . needed a laptop . . . by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      . . . this is all part of that One Laptop Per Child thingie . . . You sure? To me, it's more like "leave all laptops behind"...
    2. Re:Customs agent's kid . . . needed a laptop . . . by smchris · · Score: 1

      "One policeman's child's laptop"? After a year, what are the odds it hasn't been sold minus hard drive on auction? In a very third world manner, the sale of confiscated materials seems to have become a real moneymaker at the local police force level. Anything to protect the children.

  3. Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by OldBaldGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you RTFA, the examples appear to be cases of traveling while being Muslim, Middle Eastern or Asian. Any examples of Nordic blondes or Irish Redheads getting the same treatment?

    1. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, life is pretty good for us.

    2. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by PetriBORG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Either Muslim, or Middle Eastern, or South Asian too... But yeah I'd agree it would appear that its racial.

      What I think is maybe most disgusting though is that we're so pathetic as to accept this abuse. I travel to Asia with my wife - who is Chinese - quite a bit and the TSA and Customs people are always the worst. All I'm interested in is getting to my destination, but we all have to be treated like sheep to these people!

      I've always avoided bringing the laptop on the plane because of weight, but they are even going after iPods and cell-phone data - going as far as to copy all of your contacts, call history, and take the SIM chip out of your phone. How am I supposed to call for a ride because my phone won't work w/o the SIM chip in it...

      I can always use dm-crypt or true-crypt on my laptop but how the hell am I supposed to deal with them taking my terrorist iPod and phone? God forbid I try and bring an iPhone on the plane!

      --
      Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
    3. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nordic Blondes and Irish redheads get frisked pretty throughly. If they are very large breasted then we have to really check them over, make them get naked, take photos, oil them up and take more photos, etc...

      it's all in the name of security! If we did not do this terrorists would be blowing up EVERYTHING!!!!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was going to say, I thought the rules were perfectly clear: You are searched like crazy if you're coming from the Middle East, North Africa, or South Asia, or your name is Mohammed or Hussein, or you look vaguely Muslim.

      Of course, DHS can't actually say those rules, so instead they give out some bull about "random selection".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Either that, or the cases they cited were chosen specifically to make us think that; until you've seen all the cases you can't know the percentage. I know plenty of white, middle-class, average Americans who have been hassled by airport security and have had items seized for no apparent reason. I believe it depends on what items the security personnel need or want that day. They seem to be a bunch of thieves who steal whatever the hell they want.

    6. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by PetriBORG · · Score: 1

      Nordic Blondes and Irish redheads get frisked pretty throughly. If they are very large breasted then we have to really check them over, make them get naked, take photos, oil them up and take more photos, etc...

      it's all in the name of security! If we did not do this terrorists would be blowing up EVERYTHING!!!! Maybe they are worried that the buxom beauties will take off their tops and distract the pilots causing the plane to crash! Clearly, they are just trying to help them subdue the desire to rip of their shirt and run free. See, its all for our safety!
      --
      Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
    7. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For what it is worth, you see examples of both being hit in this thread-- the example of the disabled elderly vet above being one.

      Let's not make it about race-- it is about seizure of property without cause.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    8. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Aaron5367 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't this just what the terrorists want? Us to fear them?

      What ever happened to our liberties making us great, not our lack of them?

    9. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Of course, DHS can't actually say those rules, so instead they give out some bull about "random selection". I wonder when they stop claiming that the airline had selected you for additional security screening.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    10. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by walt-sjc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the terrorists want is to disrupt our lives, and cause fear. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. We have already lost the "war."

    11. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 4, Informative

      UK international development minister Shahid Malik, was detained on the way back from a series of meetings in Washington on combatting terrorism. You really couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7066944.stm )

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    12. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by ArcCoyote · · Score: 1

      Plenty of examples. Just fly somewhere light skin and hair is not the norm and see what kind of treatment you get at security.

      Look, it sucks that everyone is biased and paranoid, but it's definitely not something specific to the USA. It's human nature to look upon "outsiders" with suspicion.

    13. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by rhombic · · Score: 2, Funny

      On the upside, it's a great way to get you out of Federal Jury duty. I got called up last year for a case involving a family member smuggling a kid into the US from Mexico. During voir dire, they asked if anyone had had negative experiences with Customs and Immigration. I swear, half of us got rejected as jurors after that one.

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    14. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hehe. Weapons of Mass Distraction.

      Thank you, I'll be here all week

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    15. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's get right to the core ... not only is this not about race, as such, it's not even about property (the Feds couldn't care less about some used pieces of consumer electronics.) It's about the information stored in them. That's what they want, for any of a number of reasons. Whether it be terrorist plans, corporate info of one kind or another, or for that matter any examples of copyright infringement they can find (and, of course, any good porn) it's all about the data. They've said as much: it's intelligence gathering.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    16. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For what it is worth, you see examples of both being hit in this thread-- the example of the disabled elderly vet above being one. Tokenism refers to a policy or practice of limited inclusion of members of a minority group, usually creating a false appearance of inclusive practices, intentional or not. Typical examples in real life and fiction include purposely including a member of a minority race (such as a black character in a mainly white cast, or vice versa) into a group. Classically, token characters have some reduced capacity compared to the other characters, and may have bland or inoffensive personalities so as to not be accused of stereotyping negative traits. Instead, their difference may be overemphasized or made "exotic" and glamorous.

      "We're not doing racial profiling! Look, we're searching a disabled veteran, out of the dozens of brown people we searched today! See?"
      --

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

    17. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by tiananmen+tank+man · · Score: 2, Funny

      When traveling thru the airport thru international boarders, you know they check your bags and stuff for bombs and other bomb chemicals like dihydrogen monooxide. You don't have an expectation of privacy. They can and will use this opertunity to go fishing for infomation and can and will use it in court as evidence if needed.

    18. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No...
      You see terrorists don't want people to be afraid, thats just a means to an end, they actually have an agende, like trying to get Americans out of their contries.
      The whole "They just want us to be afraid"-media image is just widespread, because it takes away the actual cause of this problem, and ofcause makes it seem less like America is the root of the terrorism, and more like it's just cause all middleeastern men are insane and angry simple because of their genes.

    19. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Good; I'll remember that. I usually get out of jury duty because I know half of law enforcement in this area. They don't want anybody who may have any common sense, either.

    20. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      "but they are even going after iPods and cell-phone data - going as far as to copy all of your contacts, call history, and take the SIM chip out of your phone."

      I'd love to see them try and take the SIM chip out of my phone, the manufacturer glued it in with epoxy!

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    21. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      On the other hand, Muslim politicians working in non-Muslim countries haven't exactly proven to be the most reliable bunch of people.

    22. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by dosun88888 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that they just want us to stop helping out Israel and get our military the hell away from their countries. Our government is technically winning because they're still doing whatever the hell they want to do, and the only cost is our freedom.

      The biggest losers in this war are our children. They will get to grow up in a police state because their parents didn't have the balls to stand up and say "no more."

    23. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      This isn't about "outsiders." Muslims have developed a reputation for terrorism and troublemaking (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be a Muslim is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.

    24. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by vmxeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean like this? Or do you want to limit it just to data seizures?

    25. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Maxmin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, there's the No-Fly List. I know a civil rights attorney in Manhattan who has to drive or take the train much of the time, because he's on the federal govt's unpublished, unacknowledged No-Fly List. He's never been charged with a crime, he's not a terrorist ... but his firm represents a handful of them down at Guantanamo, and he's filed briefs on their behalf.

      He's a Jew of European descent, caucasian by appearance. I think it's down to his job and the actions his firm takes on behalf of Guantanamo detainees.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    26. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "How am I supposed to call for a ride because my phone won't work w/o the SIM chip in it..."

      Leave a killed SIM chip in the phone. Bitch at them for killing it. ;)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    27. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by blincoln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't about "outsiders." Muslims have developed a reputation for terrorism and troublemaking (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be a Muslim is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.

      This isn't about "outsiders." Jews have developed a reputation for financial conspiracy and troublemaking (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be a Jew is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.

      This isn't about "outsiders." The Irish have developed a reputation for drunken violence and terrorism (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be Irish is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.

      This isn't about "outsiders." The Japanese and Germans have developed a reputation for covert operations on behalf of their homelands while living in the United States (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be Asian (it's too hard to tell the difference) or German is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    28. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by legirons · · Score: 1

      "What the terrorists want is to disrupt our lives, and cause fear."

      Not to leave Saudi Arabia?

    29. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How far does that "no expectation of privacy" go? Maybe they have legitimate reason to search for and seize weapons, but a search for one type of evidence can't be used to gather other things.

    30. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by esper · · Score: 1

      "They don't count as Weapons of Mass Distraction unless you can fit Cheney's head in there. But then you'd have three boobs..."
      - Zilch the Torysteller

    31. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by peccary · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I can't have a jury of my peers, if negative experiences with various kinds of police are part of my ordinary experience?

    32. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 1

      It is about the loss of American rights. No one has the right to take my stuff without do process, and so forth. It is about government corruption. There have been child sex offenders in DHS. What is to stop them from using their power to protect themselves from being caught or find new victims? It is about fear and foolishness. People at the top are so scared that they implementing foolish policies that are destroying our country.

    33. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The TSA is in the process of doing what the FBI did back in the fifties, that is, overreach. The disease of unaccountability has infected that entire organization, and nothing positive will happen until they've gone way too far, abused too many people. They're on track though ... I give them a couple more years.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    34. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Troll

      We've lost a battle.

      When America converts to Islam and upholds Sharia Law as the highest authority, then we will have lost the "war". Until then, the bombings will never stop so long as we have determined religious zealots in this world.

      Perhaps I'm of the minority viewpoint on Slashdot. But, if you walk, talk, look like, and even smell like an Arab; you should be profiled without further question. If they should rise up and become more of a problem, then we take it a step further and kick them out of our country (non US citizens) and ban them from entry.

      Sorry, but fuck em. Until they can keep their own brothers and sisters in-line, I don't want to hear their bitching about profiling.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    35. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Escogido · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nordic Blondes and Irish redheads get frisked pretty throughly. If they are very large breasted then we have to really check them over, make them get naked, take photos, oil them up and take more photos, etc...

      it's all in the name of security! If we did not do this terrorists would be blowing up EVERYTHING!!!! Every-one, not every-thing. Remember, we are talking about Nordic blondes and Irish redheads blowing here.
    36. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This isn't about "outsiders." Jews have developed a reputation for financial conspiracy and troublemaking (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be a Jew is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.

      I fail to see how the mythical Zionist Conspiracy is somehow comparable to the very real phenomena of Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism occurs virtually everywhere, and there have been more than 10,000 attacks since 9/11 (moderate estimate), not to mention countless failed and disrupted attacks. Urban violence and instability are also problems. Islamic enclaves are already a reality in Europe, and in France the violence has turned to urban warfare, with police officers and emergency personnel subjected to attacks and ambushes while buildings are destroyed at random. Honor killings and gangrapes are becoming routine, and crime rates keep rising. Threats, infiltration and political pressure don't make things any easier. Of course, many of the problems are enabled by politicians who not only let these things happen, but actively assist in the process.

      This isn't about "outsiders." The Irish have developed a reputation for drunken violence and terrorism (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be Irish is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.

      I'm sorry, was this meant to be taken seriously? You're saying the IRA is comparable to Islamic terrorism?

      This isn't about "outsiders." The Japanese and Germans have developed a reputation for covert operations on behalf of their homelands while living in the United States (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be Asian (it's too hard to tell the difference) or German is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.

      I don't even know what this means.

      The fact is that Jewish, Irish, German and Japanese people do not have the kind of reputations you're fantasizing about. They don't exist, and there's no reason for them to exist, just like there's no reason why Buddhists would have a reputation of being violent terrorists. Muslims practise, support and defend terrorism and other manifestations of Islamofascism so much that they have developed a reputation for it. Therefore people are suspicious of them. You seem to be saying that it isn't their fault. Well whose fault is it? Are Muslims not free agents capable of making their own decisions?
    37. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by HiThere · · Score: 1

      They've said it, but they lie so regularly that I see no reason to believe them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    38. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by hamster_nz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, You missed his point. All of these groups 'could' be treated in the same was as you currently view Muslims - there are justifications in history! Were you in London while the IRA were bombing? I went to school with somebody who who lost a leg in an IRA bombing. Which is far closer to me personally then any body killed by a Muslim terror attack. In some cases reputations are earned. In this case popular media is portraying all followers of the Muslim faith as being fundamentalists - and some people less capable in critical thinking are believing it. Surely it is everybody with the name "Bin Laden" that should be screened!

    39. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by ill+stew+dottied+ewe · · Score: 1

      I find your sig somewhat ironic. Attempting to utilize the sky in any way violates the terms of the Double-Secret-PatRiot Act. You are now considered a "terrist" and shall be confined some distance below ground, if not six feet.

    40. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      You know an even easier way to get out of jury duty? Present yourself as honest, intelligent and capable of rational thought. They'll throw you out on day one.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    41. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Um, You missed his point. All of these groups 'could' be treated in the same was as you currently view Muslims

      No they couldn't be. That's the problem with his post.

      Were you in London while the IRA were bombing? I went to school with somebody who who lost a leg in an IRA bombing. Which is far closer to me personally then any body killed by a Muslim terror attack.

      One personal experience is utterly meaningless.

      In some cases reputations are earned. In this case popular media is portraying all followers of the Muslim faith as being fundamentalists - and some people less capable in critical thinking are believing it.

      It's not the media's fault. The media doesn't hold Muslims at gunpoint and demand them to engage in terrorism, honor killing, rioting, gangraping and whatnot. Why don't you treat Muslims like sentient beings instead of assuming that they're retards who don't know what they're doing?
    42. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Myrkridian42 · · Score: 1
      I can attest that "Random Selection" is a complete crock. I was once "Randomly Selected" for search when checking into my flight: they patted me down, searched my carry-on bag and wouldn't let me leave the gate area until the flight left. All of this AFTER going through security without incident. 2 other people were "Randomly Selected" for search as well. A white man (me), a white woman and an asian man chosen completely at "Random".

      The fact all 3 of us had one-way tickets was coincidence, I'm sure.

      And all that for a 1 hour flight from LA to San Francisco.

    43. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ok, how was this trolling? Anyone care to explain? I must be the only Slashdotter who even knows what "troll" means.

    44. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Modding me -1 instead of presenting a counter-argument is the best way of proving me wrong. Obviously.

    45. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Wow, someone modded me -1! What a brilliant counter-argument! You have surely proven me wrong!

    46. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by flokati · · Score: 1

      +5 Insightful!?!?! Sounds like you only hang out with people like yourself, and the only Muslims you can name are in Al Qaeda. I can see that from your limited point of view how you'd think that all (many, most, 1%, whatever) Muslims are terrorists, but that is simply not true. Same goes for your other trite examples.

    47. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      No, they just do a strip search.

    48. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I can't have a jury of my peers, if negative experiences with various kinds of police are part of my ordinary experience?

      I almost laughed. Then my brain kicked in.

    49. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Raideen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't about "outsiders." The Japanese and Germans have developed a reputation for covert operations on behalf of their homelands while living in the United States (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be Asian (it's too hard to tell the difference) or German is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.
      I don't even know what this means.
      Seriously? That was a reference to the internment of the Japanese and Germans (even American citizens of Japanese and German decent) in America during World World II.

      The fact is that Jewish, Irish, German and Japanese people do not have the kind of reputations you're fantasizing about.
      The examples are real ones taken from history. They're not theoretical. Oh, and I've had Muslim friends. They never even tried to kill me for being an infidel! They must've failed terrorism training camp or something. Your brand of hate mongering is eerily similar to the kinds of justifications that has been used throughout history in order to unjustly attack or oppress "undesirable" groups of people.
    50. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by quintessentialk · · Score: 1

      What the terrorists want is to disrupt our lives, and cause fear. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. We have already lost the "war."


      Whoa! Has your life really been disrupted? Are you really afraid? Maybe I'm in the minority here, but my life has not been disrupted at all by 9/11 or any of the policies that have followed. To be honest, I'm not even sure the war has affected my life at all, except in the abstract economic sense, or the empathy for the fallen I feel when I hear their names read at church. I'd like to think I'm more globally-conscious and active than that, but the truth is it is really hard to think anything special or unusual is going on when it impacts my life so little. Maybe I should watch more TV news.

      I've never found the security procedures at airports to be that frustrating -- unnecessary or misguided perhaps, but nothing worth getting angry about. Yeah, if my laptop were confiscated, I'd be annoyed, but I doubt that is happening with any frequency. Heck, if we're talking personal anecdotes and fringe cases in this thread (what else is slashdot about?), I'd say my experience has been the opposite. For my employer I've carried defense system components in my carry-on and I've avoided having them inspected just be politely indicating they were fragile.

      As far as fear goes... Who honestly is afraid of a terrorist attack? Maybe people in NYC, who had to live through it, god bless them, but everyone else knows the chance of being hurt in a US terrorist attack is minuscule -- partly thanks law enforcement, don't think I'm ungrateful. At the very least, it's not something I ever have to think about..
    51. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fwiw, I didn't mean it to be funny, and I hope nobody takes it that way.

    52. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting the third degree, yes. Wasn't traveling with much in the way of electronics.

    53. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Osama bin Laden successfully persuaded Americans to build, prime, and set off a "bomb" in their own civil society.

    54. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Seriously? That was a reference to the internment of the Japanese and Germans (even American citizens of Japanese and German decent) in America during World World II.

      Too bad those internments have nothing to do with anything.

      The examples are real ones taken from history. They're not theoretical.

      What are those examples supposed to prove? Because Japanese and German people were once treated with suspicion, it must somehow mean that treating Muslims with suspicion is wrong? Or what? I don't get it. This is now, and what Muslims are doing or not doing has nothing to do with what some other people were doing or not doing many decades ago. There's no connection.

      The fact still remains that Muslims have a reputation for being terrorists and troublemakers, and it's their own fault. Thus, people are suspicious of them. Their reputation is well deserved, and if you look at Islam's history you'll see that there's nothing new about what they're doing.

      Oh, and I've had Muslim friends. They never even tried to kill me for being an infidel! They must've failed terrorism training camp or something.

      I bet the number of Muslim friends you have is considerably lower than the number of Muslims who would gladly decapitate you. Are you really going to argue that Muslims pose no threat and that Islam is a Religion of Peace (tm) just because you have a couple of benign Muslim friends? Did it ever occur to you that maybe there's a world outside your small sphere of existence?

      Your brand of hate mongering is eerily similar to the kinds of justifications that has been used throughout history in order to unjustly attack or oppress "undesirable" groups of people.

      Except I'm not, you know, attacking or oppressing anyone. Muslims, on the other hand, are actually doing that as we speak.

      Muslims always get a free pass. No matter how much they threaten, terrorize, kill and rampage, nobody says a word. If someone does say something, he's guilty of "hate mongering" or "racism." Muslims are never guilty of anything. Do you have a rational reason for ignoring what they do and attacking anyone who talks about it?
    55. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      You need some explanation: Irony is not a metal!
      You think it's a bad reason to accuse jews or irish and harass them, send them to torture camps as soon as you think they might be a threat to your comfort? On the other hand when it concerns muslims it's normal... So where exactly is that limit between normal and not? Is it when your skin is not the right color? Your beard too long? Or is it the religion?

      What triggered this answer is this:

      and in France the violence has turned to urban warfare

      But I'll come back to that later. First:
      It's people like you who are responsible for the rise of Sadam, Hitler, Bush and other despots. You justification is: there are "good" reasons to persecution. Hitler shared your point of view.
      Instead of going after the people who failed to act (or juts let things happen that 9/11 to get the convenient war propaganda), you let your rights burn, you justify your own oppression, you take the lies about terrorism in Iraq as granted (the only terrorists active in Iraq were backed by the US and were acting to replace Sadam by a more cooperative dictator, just like in the very well documented coup against Mohammed Mossadegh which led to the current Iranian situation). You support the american terrorism. You can't recognise a failed leader when you see one, Bush speaks in YOUR name, he acts in YOUR name.

      they have developed a reputation for it.

      Americans have developed a reputation: a short summary of things done in YOUR name: You call others nations terrorists if they don't support in your holly war, you invade a country under false pretexts, plan the chaos (disbanding the government and army http://www.cfr.org/publication/7853/iraq.html) which will justify the presence of your army in the country. You steal all the oil you can while people argue about the effectiveness of your strategy. You kill people at random (just for fun, a video) and you create laws to avoid being prosecuted... You kill more people cause it's fun It's bad you broke rules but no laws, because killing people is not a crime (the killers will walk free and proud in your streets). You have a strong tendency of acting like criminals at every level of the state and you make your own law how and where it pleases you; As Bush said "He tried to kill my dad". And so you bombed a nation with radioactive waste (twice http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml, http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html). Also, giving false evidence about mass destruction weapons to bring other nations into your jihad is another strategy in you sick failed-state. And this reputation of being christian fanatics who create your own private (out of the law) saint armies http://www.blackwaterusa.com/ counts for something... Your leaders are a reflection of yourself.

      I think there are valid reasons for millions of people around the world to seek vengeance against the US. So stop complaining, having a 1984 like system at the airports and having your laptop stolen by greedy TSA officials is a low price to pay for your own security when you are too lazy to act responsibly. You don't deserve freedom if you can't fight for it... It's up to you as a citizen of a country to watch where your freedom goes... You are just like russians, happy to give away your rights by fear of loosing some of this daily comfort. At the airport you are treated like cattle, because you are... Your country and its officials (from top to bottom TSA agents) consider you as such... it gives you

    56. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fucking DARE YOU to head to detroit and say they out-loud in a mall. you'll have a suicide bomber on your ass in 30 minutes. He'll roll up in his Mercedes E class and cap yo ass with 25 pounds of TNT.

    57. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it was the "manufacturer" who glued it in? ;)

    58. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      It must be a very happy place you live in - oblivious to all the changes going on around you.

      I don't think you understand the fear. It's not me being in fear of a terrorist attack, it's fear of the government invading my personal life and destroying the few freedoms we have left. It's the fear that my child will grow up not being free because a few hundred idiots in DC don't understand what freedom is anymore.

    59. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      You think it's a bad reason to accuse jews or irish and harass them, send them to torture camps as soon as you think they might be a threat to your comfort? On the other hand when it concerns muslims it's normal... So where exactly is that limit between normal and not? Is it when your skin is not the right color? Your beard too long? Or is it the religion?

      That doesn't make any rational or logical sense. Just because Hitler was a crazy person who persecuted the Jews for no reason doesn't mean that it's exactly the same thing with Muslims. By the way, I don't remember saying that Muslims should be sent to death camps or that they should be opposed because they're a "threat to your comfort."

      It's people like you who are responsible for the rise of Sadam, Hitler, Bush and other despots. You justification is: there are "good" reasons to persecution. Hitler shared your point of view.

      Depends on how you define persecution. You don't seem to have a problem with the way Muslims persecute people, though. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the way religious minorities are treated in Islamic societies.

      Instead of going after the people who failed to act (or juts let things happen that 9/11 to get the convenient war propaganda), you let your rights burn, you justify your own oppression, you take the lies about terrorism in Iraq as granted (the only terrorists active in Iraq were backed by the US and were acting to replace Sadam by a more cooperative dictator, just like in the very well documented coup against Mohammed Mossadegh which led to the current Iranian situation). You support the american terrorism. You can't recognise a failed leader when you see one, Bush speaks in YOUR name, he acts in YOUR name.

      Newsflash: I'm not American. I'm Northern European.

      This matter has hardly anything to do with 9/11, Bush, Iraq or the US. You're clearly way out of your depth in this discussion.

      You can't count any of those in Iraq or Afghanistan as these are part of the war and civil war process.. Otherwise you would have to count every person killed by us troops as a victims of US terrorists activities.

      The statistics only count incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan where particularly heinous terrorist tactics were used. However, Iraq and Afghanistan are just two places. Islamic terrorism is global. Thailand is a notable hotspot, though.

      There's a dramatic difference between what terrorists and US forces are doing. The terrorists routinely, deliberately and indiscriminately target civilians because they're waging Jihad against infidels or heretics. They also have no qualms about using innovative tactics like child suicide bombers. US forces, as a rule, do not deliberately kill civilians, and it's not legal for them to do so. One reason for collateral damage and accidental killings in Iraq is the situation that has been caused by terrorists. Any person US forces come in contact with can be hostile. Any car that comes near could be set to explode. It's really easy to armchair criticize them when you're not in that situation. If the terrorists would cease their Jihad efforts, Iraq would be a much more peaceful place.

      he british were saying that. Anyway the IRA vs UDA/british government was a war over national independence and political influence. What happens in Iraq now is exactly the same thing... but instead of one IRA there are dozens of clans and politicians with their own armies. I don't believe even one tenth of the bombings in that country would be driven only by religion. Sadam had focused on nationalism driving religion away from the government. He had most extremists executed or broken, I don't see how so many people would have changed into religious fanatics overnight. But seeing abuses committed by your troops and the overall chaos and destruction of their nation might have

    60. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't. They don't care about disrupting your lives or scaring you. They don't give a damn about your freedom, or about your constitution. None of that is important to them.

      They want you out of the middle east, and to stop supporting Israel.
      Their dream is to establish an Islamic state across the entire middle east, Egypt, south-asia and beyond.

    61. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My redhead wife used to get extra scrutiny every time she went through Heathrow while her blonde boss always sailed through - even before 9/11. Something to do with my wife looking Irish...

    62. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

      UK international development minister Shahid Malik, was detained on the way back from a series of meetings in Washington on combatting terrorism.

      When they asked him what he was there for, he probably used the t-word. It's ridiculous that there is an unwritten list of words that one isn't allowed to use in an airport.

    63. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you fucking morons even know what trolling is? Having an unpopular opinion is not trolling. Having an opinion that differs from Slashdot's leftist dogma is not trolling. Get a fucking clue.

    64. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      This may come as a shock to you guys, but trolls don't write long, detailed and serious rebuttals.

      What's funny is that modding someone -1 for no reason can actually be considered trolling. But I'm sure the irony is too hard for Slashdotters to grasp.

    65. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Raideen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What are those examples supposed to prove? Because Japanese and German people were once treated with suspicion, it must somehow mean that treating Muslims with suspicion is wrong? Or what? I don't get it. This is now, and what Muslims are doing or not doing has nothing to do with what some other people were doing or not doing many decades ago. There's no connection.
      Japan and Germany were attacking other nations, thus the suspicion against people of Japanese and Germany descent. At least some Muslim nations are funding terrorists, thus the suspicion of Muslims. I don't know how you can dismiss the similarities. If you are in agreement with the interment during WWII, then at least have the balls to say so. Then at least you would have a consistent point of view. If you don't see a problem with what happened then, it's obvious that you wouldn't see a problem now.

      I bet the number of Muslim friends you have is considerably lower than the number of Muslims who would gladly decapitate you.
      How is that a rational argument? My friends vs. the number of extremists among 1.5 billion Muslims. Yeah, that's a fair comparison. You're more likely to killed by a non-Muslim in New York. Maybe you're statistically more likely to get killed by someone of a particular race or ethnicity. Let's fear them too! What point were you trying to make?

      Are you really going to argue that Muslims pose no threat and that Islam is a Religion of Peace (tm) just because you have a couple of benign Muslim friends? Did it ever occur to you that maybe there's a world outside your small sphere of existence?
      Am I going to argue that all Muslims pose no threat? No, of course not. I'm a New Yorker. I'm also not going to say that all Muslim nations pose no threat to other nations, because that's obviously not true. On the other hand, you argue that Islam is a Religion of Hate(tm). How small is your world that you think that all Muslims are evil and violent or actually believe that a majority of them are? If that were true, the U.S. would have been driven out of Afghanistan and Iraq a long time ago because the death toll would have been at least an order of magnitude higher than it is now.

      Muslims always get a free pass. No matter how much they threaten, terrorize, kill and rampage, nobody says a word. If someone does say something, he's guilty of "hate mongering" or "racism." Muslims are never guilty of anything. Do you have a rational reason for ignoring what they do and attacking anyone who talks about it?
      I'm not ignoring anything. You just make broad, sweeping rationalizations about 1.5 billion people, hence the hate mongering. Would it appease you to call it prejudice instead?
    66. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Islamic culture is peaceful... The islamist who call for Jihad for political reasons and introduced suicide as a norm are heretics in their own religion... Just like the Catholics during the XIII and XV to XVII centuries there is a primitive violent movement in the religion. Religion have been used as a good justification it hundreds of murders and massacres.

      Christianity has nothing to do with US foreign policy

      I think you don't read the news. Anyway "chritianofascism" was related to your "islamofascism"... You know humor, sarcasm and all... no?

      (in one such attack a woman was severely injured)

      Please, prove it was a racist act done by muslims as it is the topic here (a hint look for Mama Galledou).

      You make it sounds like their actions are just a harmless way of passing time on a Friday night. What's wrong with you?

      It is for the lads from the cités... Just as it was for right wing skinheads to drown or burn muslims and jews a couple of years back... Idiocy and violence just passed into the hands of another undereducated part of the society... the part that was repressed before and expresses its blind, pointless rage now. I have been an immigrant and also lived through some difficult moments with some native idiots... but I had a pretty strong education and feel blessed for it.

      Jihad is a standing order for all Muslims

      Which muslims? Shias or Sunni? Ismailis, Alawis, Druzes, Twelvers, Imami, Zaidiyyah, Ash'ari, Maturidiyyah, Athariyyah... ?
      You might ignore it, but there is a large number of currents in Islam just as there are different currents in Christianity and Judaism.

      The influence comes from Islamic culture where attitudes towards women and sexuality are different from ours.

      I believe Mormons and other sects in our culture are very close to dark ages on that point. But I might be wrong here I am not familiar with these christian sects.
      I believe american culture concerning women and sex is very different from mine... I don't consider women as "hoes"... nor do i think you will "burn in hell for being sexually active as a teenager" to quote only two American ideals

      There's a dramatic difference between what terrorists and US forces are doing.

      You should put more arguments here... I'm not sure what your sources are. Please correct me if I am wrong, but jus ad bellum does not provide any right to preemptive wars and even less to invasions... The US invasion (of Iraq) is therefore a terrorist act (as per broadly any definition). It has never been approved by any international organization. It was organized solely by the US and a couple of accomplice nations. Led by the US without a proper declaration of war, and handled in the most brutal and destructive way for the invaded nation. The only act of reconstruction led by US authorities was that of Oil fields confiscated by the US government. All the rest (judicial system, education system culture, political framework, army and peacekeeping forces, utilities and sanitary installations...) was destroyed to put money into private contract companies during the (never planed) reconstruction. I think that apart from the chaos the worst thing Iraqis are facing now is the prospect of having the same social and health system as the US.

      US forces, as a rule, do not deliberately kill civilians, and it's not legal for them to do so.

      Again. It might not be legal for soldiers of the regular army... But they had no training nor knowledge when it comes ROE, LOAC or Geneva Conventions. They killed people by negligence and for fun, executing wounded and

    67. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Japan and Germany were attacking other nations, thus the suspicion against people of Japanese and Germany descent. At least some Muslim nations are funding terrorists, thus the suspicion of Muslims. I don't know how you can dismiss the similarities. If you are in agreement with the interment during WWII, then at least have the balls to say so. Then at least you would have a consistent point of view. If you don't see a problem with what happened then, it's obvious that you wouldn't see a problem now.

      That... doesn't make any sense. Seriously, what the fuck?

      How is that a rational argument? My friends vs. the number of extremists among 1.5 billion Muslims. Yeah, that's a fair comparison.

      It's not supposed to be fair. You're using a few friends to argue that most Muslims are not fundamentalists, but that doesn't work since there's a much larger amount of Muslims out there who are fundamentalists. You're actually arguing that your friends are somehow more important and influential than, say, 50 million people.

      You're more likely to killed by a non-Muslim in New York. Maybe you're statistically more likely to get killed by someone of a particular race or ethnicity. Let's fear them too! What point were you trying to make?

      I never said Muslims should be feared because you could suddenly be killed by one (though the chances of that happening will greatly increase if you wander into a Muslim controlled area in Europe).

      Am I going to argue that all Muslims pose no threat? No, of course not. I'm a New Yorker. I'm also not going to say that all Muslim nations pose no threat to other nations, because that's obviously not true. On the other hand, you argue that Islam is a Religion of Hate(tm). How small is your world that you think that all Muslims are evil and violent or actually believe that a majority of them are?

      The de facto majority of them are, in one way or another, enemies of the modern world (but primarily the West). Some of them are actual terrorists, some of them support terrorists, some of them engage in propaganda, manipulation and infiltration, some threaten and bully, and some commit crimes, while many others just give them their silent support. Even so-called moderate Muslims support these people, but often unwittingly. They confuse and mislead infidels by claiming that Islam is a Religion of Peace (tm) and that "extremists" are just misunderstanding its unquestionably peaceful teachings. They may try to silence dissidents by accusing them of Islamophobia, xenophobia, Nazism and racism. They defend and rationalize the actions of terrorists and fundamentalists. By doing these things, they ensure that no reform within Islam will ever be possible, assuming it's possible at all. Actual reformists are often threatened, harrassed, assaulted or murdered, even if they live in Western countries.

      If that were true, the U.S. would have been driven out of Afghanistan and Iraq a long time ago because the death toll would have been at least an order of magnitude higher than it is now.

      As I said, not everyone engages in physical warfare.

      I'm not ignoring anything. You just make broad, sweeping rationalizations about 1.5 billion people, hence the hate mongering. Would it appease you to call it prejudice instead?

      Prejudiced would imply that I'm passing judgement without sufficient knowledge, but that's incorrect. I have plenty of knowledge, and I know what's going on. Most people don't really know anything. They don't follow any specialized news services or read about the subject, but they still consider themselves experts of the highest order.
    68. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Islamic culture is peaceful... The islamist who call for Jihad for political reasons and introduced suicide as a norm are heretics in their own religion... Just like the Catholics during the XIII and XV to XVII centuries there is a primitive violent movement in the religion. Religion have been used as a good justification it hundreds of murders and massacres.

      There's nothing heretical about what they're doing, and they don't do it for political reasons. They follow their religion correctly, in the footsteps of Mohammed. The methods have changed to reflect the diminished power of Muslim nations, but the nature of Jihad warfare has not changed during its ~1400 years of existence.

      I think you don't read the news. Anyway "chritianofascism" was related to your "islamofascism"... You know humor, sarcasm and all... no?

      This "Chritianofascism" of yours is an imaginary construct, at least in the context of US foreign policy. Just because Islamofascism exists doesn't mean there somehow must be an equal, identical force within Christianity. The world is not symmetrical and balanced.

      Please, prove it was a racist act done by muslims as it is the topic here (a hint look for Mama Galledou).

      I don't remember claiming that it was a racist attack. I don't remember bringing up race, either.

      It is for the lads from the cités... Just as it was for right wing skinheads to drown or burn muslims and jews a couple of years back... Idiocy and violence just passed into the hands of another undereducated part of the society... the part that was repressed before and expresses its blind, pointless rage now. I have been an immigrant and also lived through some difficult moments with some native idiots... but I had a pretty strong education and feel blessed for it.

      Funny how it's always immigrants from Islamic countries that do this kind of stuff. I'm sure it's just a bizarre coincidence. Nothing to see here, move along. Even if we pretend that their culture has nothing to do with their actions, it's still a fact that they are causing immense amounts of trouble and instability.

      Which muslims? Shias or Sunni? Ismailis, Alawis, Druzes, Twelvers, Imami, Zaidiyyah, Ash'ari, Maturidiyyah, Athariyyah... ?
      You might ignore it, but there is a large number of currents in Islam just as there are different currents in Christianity and Judaism.

      There are probably some sects that don't believe in Jihad, but they are insignificant.

      I believe Mormons and other sects in our culture are very close to dark ages on that point. But I might be wrong here I am not familiar with these christian sects.
      I believe american culture concerning women and sex is very different from mine... I don't consider women as "hoes"... nor do i think you will "burn in hell for being sexually active as a teenager" to quote only two American ideals

      What the hell do Americans have to do with this? Are you completely unable to deal with Islam and Muslims without immediately trying to drag someone or something else down to their level, or without trying to ignore issues by pointing the finger elsewhere?

      "American culture" doesn't see women as hoes, nor does "American culture" dictate that you will burn in hell for being sexuall active as a teenager. You're either deliberately misrepresenting them or you're confused, but either way I really have to salute you for thinking that encouraging abstinence is morally equal to murdering or raping women for acting in an un-Islamic fashion (which can mean anything from going outside without a male escort to wearing Western clothes to getting an education). There is no religion or culture on Earth that treats women as badly as Islam does. Today's Saudi Arabia is more backwards than Europe or Asia a thousand years ago.

      Again. It might not be legal for soldiers of the regula

    69. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any examples of Nordic blondes or Irish Redheads getting the same treatment?
      .
      Yes.
    70. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Nazi card is really getting tiresome.

      You must be quite german to react this badly...

      There's nothing heretical about what they're doing, and they don't do it for political reasons. They follow their religion correctly, in the footsteps of Mohammed. The methods have changed to reflect the diminished power of Muslim nations, but the nature of Jihad warfare has not changed during its ~1400 years of existence.

      I am not informed well enough to discuss this matter, could you link to some sources of yours?.

      There are probably some sects that don't believe in Jihad, but they are insignificant.

      I don't know so many muslims but i probably know more of them than you must have ever seen in your life to act in such an xenophobic way... but please enlighten me, link to information about jihad adhering currents and non adherents.

      Today's Saudi Arabia is more backwards than Europe or Asia a thousand years ago.

      I totally agree on that... Also note that this regime is backed and supported by the defenders of freedom, the USA! (That was a very tempting one, sorry)

      What the hell do Americans have to do with this? Are you completely unable to deal with Islam and Muslims without immediately trying to drag someone or something else down to their level, or without trying to ignore issues by pointing the finger elsewhere?

      I do recognize there is a problem with extremists... all over the world and whatever their religion and color and shaving habits. The fact that Radical Islam gets all the attention doesn't mean you should put all the muslims in the same basket. [It's impossible anyway, they won't fit (joke! don't flame!)]. All germans are not nazis... are they? So stop generalizing, meet people, talk to them.

      I don't remember claiming that it was a racist attack. I don't remember bringing up race, either.

      Funny how it's always immigrants from Islamic countries that do this kind of stuff.

      Sorry I took it for granted... just the way you tend to point your fingers at the justice in harassing muslims who have this reputation... But I was wrong in believing you accused this attack on muslims.

      I'm sure it's just a bizarre coincidence

      Certainly not... But I would like to see some kind of proof showing the ratio of muslims / non muslims in those riots (which should be possible by looking at the ration among the arrested people). I would also like to point out the following: Riots are the result of strong problems in a country, youth and students are most of the time initiators of these. The French nation has a very strong story when it comes to striking and rioting one or two more riots politically used and amplified by french left wing press and media against the right wing candidate Sarkozy is hardly an argument (in your anti leftist mouth)... I believe you have no clue about the situation in France, but if you do, please, tell me more.

      You obviously don't want to deal with this issue. What are you afraid of?

      Afraid of? Don't know why? I was just saying you were right there are many idiots on this planet. And yes criminality and violence are real issues. Organized crime and pointless criminal acts are more than numerous all over the world. Telling it's the Jews or the muslims or the americans is just a lack of judgement. Give me links to facts or news.

      I'm pretty sure all US forces are educated on ROE, LOAC and Geneva Conventions.

      Please provide a link... And I will be happy to read that prior to the invasion all soldiers were properly trained and informed of their duties and obligations. Also explain me how comes a whole prison mutated into a gulag without any official noticing (I'm speaking of Abu Ghraib)

      What lack of culture?

      I will read links (contrarily to you) and a

    71. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by ErkDemon · · Score: 1
      Pff.
      This is a guy who attends antiterrorism conferences, and he regards it as "abusive" to even have his hand-luggage looked through before he gets on a plane?

      Jeez.

      I think that it's important that the people who make laws that impinge on the liberties of the rest of us should have to put up with the same restrictions themselves, so that they understand what it's like. There shouldn't be one set of laws for them and another for us.

      ...

      And another thing ... I'd love to have seen the security officer's face when this guy explained why he was in the country.

      "Work or pleasure? A bit of both. Terrorism actually. Oh, yes, I'm attending a conference on terrorism, with a load of Muslim groups that feel that they have a strong personal stake in antiterrorism legislation. We all want to get together in Washington and shoot the breeze and exchange ideas about terrorism and the factors that encourage it. Yes, it's all arranged and scheduled, we're all converging on Washington at the same time, on different planes. And some important people from Homeland Security will be there, which'll be fun.
      Yes, I know a lot of the other guys there. I work for a foreign power, as their minister for foreign aid, so I do a lot of foreign travel, and have lots of contacts in countries where terrorists are recruited. Yes, I'm considered quite an expert in these sorts of issues. Yes, I'm known to the FBI, they reckon that I know so much about this stuff that I'm actually going to give a keynote speech on it."
      "What's that? You'd like to take a look inside my hand-luggage? Nooooo! This is an infringement of my human rights!"

      I mean, seriously, I think that a lot of this airport security stuff is stupid and OTT and overly intrusive, but in this particular case it'd probably be negligent if they didn't at least want to check his reaction when they asked to go through his hand-luggage.
      If he seriously thought that working for a foreign government meant that he was immune to standard security checks, and reacted badly to the suggestion that they look in his bag, then that's all the more reason to check him. I mean, if there were 500 people in an airport lounge of various colours and religious persuasions, and you could only check one of them for possible terrorist devices or components, then it'd be him, wouldn't it?
      And you'd also tend to think, well, if this guy's going to a conference on terrorism, if anyone's going to be understanding about being searched, it should be this guy. And you can't have him addressing a meeting on Homeland security and telling them how he'd just sailed through security without being given the most basic searches, just by making a fuss. No, you'd have to check him. It'd look bad if you didn't.

    72. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by shamer · · Score: 1

      Sorry to flame and/or be off topic, But "Nordic blondes or Irish Redheads" did not declare war on the US, nor did they hi-jack commercial jets.

      Back on topic:

      Personally i would have refused, been denied my flight. Gone to the nearest UPS/FedEx/ (insert shipping company here) and sent it home. Then try again.

      Another thing to try, is refuse / walk away, and go to a different line, where different TSA agents are, chances are you will get through just fine.

    73. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      If he seriously thought that working for a foreign government meant that he was immune to standard security checks, and reacted badly to the suggestion that they look in his bag, then that's all the more reason to check him. I mean, if there were 500 people in an airport lounge of various colours and religious persuasions, and you could only check one of them for possible terrorist devices or components, then it'd be him, wouldn't it?
      Odd. I would have thought that as a senior member of the British government, he could claim diplomatic immunity?
    74. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      You must be quite german to react this badly...

      Pulling out the Nazi card for no reason is juvenile and irritating.

      I am not informed well enough to discuss this matter, could you link to some sources of yours?.

      Muslims have waged Jihad for nearly one and a half millennia all over the world, though most people are unaware of it because they're too busy apologizing for the Crusades. Islam Watch, a site run by former Muslims, has a collection of articles on the history of Jihad.

      I don't know so many muslims but i probably know more of them than you must have ever seen in your life to act in such an xenophobic way... but please enlighten me, link to information about jihad adhering currents and non adherents.

      There's over a billion Muslims in the world. The amount of Muslims you know is not even a drop in the sea. What exactly does it matter that you know a few Muslims? It's hilarious that if I, for example, cite a statistic that says 500,000 Muslims in country X support Jihad, people say that I'm generalizing based on just a few people. Yet when these same people want to prove that the Vast Majority of Muslims are peaceful, they tell me that they know a Muslim at work and he's a really cool guy.

      Also, I'm not xenophobic. Why would you even accuse me of xenophobia?

      I totally agree on that... Also note that this regime is backed and supported by the defenders of freedom, the USA! (That was a very tempting one, sorry)

      The US has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia's culture.

      I do recognize there is a problem with extremists... all over the world and whatever their religion and color and shaving habits.

      Not all extremists are equal in numbers, influence and danger.

      The fact that Radical Islam gets all the attention doesn't mean you should put all the muslims in the same basket. [It's impossible anyway, they won't fit (joke! don't flame!)]. All germans are not nazis... are they? So stop generalizing, meet people, talk to them.

      I never said all Muslims are anything. Why should I meet people and talk to them? Again, there over a billion Muslims in the world.

      You're on the Internet, and you presumably use it frequently to find all kinds of information. Why, then, do you not use the Internet to inform yourself of things related to Islam and Muslims? It seems that you don't want to know what's happening outside your immediate surroundings, and you believe personal experiences are the only way to know anything. The Internet enables people to access a virtually unlimited amount of information, as well as read news and personal experiences from others. It's like a hive mind. I have not personally been to some random Muslim controlled territory in Sweden or Britain, but many others have, and their experiences are just as valid as anyone else's. The information available at your disposal is non-existent because you arbitrarily limit it to things that you have personally witnessed, whereas I use the Internet to gain information from all corners of the world. My pool of information is astronomically larger than yours.

      That reminds me of something I once called the fallacy of personal experiences. I have noticed that the validity of a personal experience is determined solely by its ideological and moral purity. If a person goes into a Muslim neighborhood and experiences terrible and negative things, he is labelled a xenophobic Nazi racist. His experience contradicts multiculturalist ideology, and it's morally wrong to contradict it. If another person says that he recently met a nice Muslim family, everyone takes that experience as further proof of the fact that the Vast Majority of Muslims are peaceful and decent people.

      Also, a single personal experience describes a

    75. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Sorry guys, protesting ideologically driven mod abuse isn't trolling either. Try again.

    76. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Stanistani · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, just looking at your statements was sufficient.

      Hey, guys, don't mod this guy down and make him in his own eyes a martyr. Respond to him. Show how far off he is in not acknowledging recent historical examples.

      Especially get on him for the 'their own fault' statement.

      Not every member of a group is an extremist, and if we antagonize those members who work against extremism, we do ourselves a severe disservice as well.

    77. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, just looking at your statements was sufficient.

      Choo choo. Here comes the clue train, last stop is you: disagreeing with Slashdot's leftist dogma is not trolling.

      Especially get on him for the 'their own fault' statement.

      Really? Is there perhaps a Zionist Mind Control Satellite forcing them to do things against their will?

      Not every member of a group is an extremist

      And I never said otherwise.

      and if we antagonize those members who work against extremism, we do ourselves a severe disservice as well.

      It's actually "moderate" Muslims and Islamic apologists like you who do the most damage to reform efforts by shutting down all critical discussion about Islam and attacking freedom of speech.
    78. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by hamster_nz · · Score: 2, Informative

      In general, to "troll" means to allure, to fish, to entice or to bait - usually wanting to slam the other person.

      I can see two reasons why your post was a troll.

      1. Ones persons verifiable personal contact to an act of terrorism is not "utterly meaningless" - it is at least one datum.
      I guess if I were to call a fact that your school buddy lost a leg in 9/11 "utterly meaningless" I would be marked as a troll too.

      2. Regarding the media - I think from my post it was quite clear that I don't think that muslims are bad people, and I gather you don't follow Fox News... headlines line "KUWAIT CITY -- Valentine's Day is just three days away, but one Muslim politician is heading up a committee to make sure it goes completely ignored.". What sort of reporting is that???

      If I were to say something like "And what about those Christian American paediophile soldiers who pack-raped a 14 year old Iraq girl then shot her and her family in Mahmoudiya - those sons-of-a-b@#$h Americans are evil". That, my friend, is quite a worthy troll.

      Notice how the "those" in that sentence refers to the the five soldiers and is 100% true (assuming they have been . Notice how the "American" adjective seems to tar all Americans with the same brush. Do you disagree with me about those Americans being evil? If not, do you support murder and rape? That is the Fox News way... the American "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" School of making News.

    79. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      1. Ones persons verifiable personal contact to an act of terrorism is not "utterly meaningless" - it is at least one datum.
      I guess if I were to call a fact that your school buddy lost a leg in 9/11 "utterly meaningless" I would be marked as a troll too.

      When talking about terrorism on a global scale, one personal experience is indeed meaningless.

      If I were to say something like "And what about those Christian American paediophile soldiers who pack-raped a 14 year old Iraq girl then shot her and her family in Mahmoudiya - those sons-of-a-b@#$h Americans are evil". That, my friend, is quite a worthy troll.

      Uh, so what? What does that have to do with me?
    80. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think the burden of proof is on you. The notion that soldiers receive no training in the laws of warfare strikes me as very absurd.

      You tell me you know/are pretty sure/whatever then prove it. Don't affirm thing you imagined. Your imagination and belief is no proof. You're too lazy and dumb (or have you never been in the army?) buthere you go. I'll spare you the effort of clicking:

      "We had no training whatsoever," he said.
      "I kept asking my chain of command for certain things... like rules and regulations. And it just wasn't happening," he said.
      He said he never saw a copy of the Geneva Conventions - which govern the treatment of prisoners - until after he was charged.

      I will not link to previously linked articles (as you obviously did not even click on the links) which show executions of prisoners and wounded... or is that part of the Geneva Conventions?

      I used to be an average multiculturalist drone like you

      Am I? I lived in different countries, cultures and places. I adapt quite well. And I understand how rules are applied and enforced in the places I live. I talk to people come to know and understand them and their story... listen to their personal stories. As an immigrant I learn to play by the local rules.

      Then I changed my world view entirely.

      Have you been assaulted by someone looking a bit tanned? This would explain a shift of stance and a perception of continual persecution (you display this erratic behavior in most of your posts).

      Muslims have waged Jihad for nearly one and a half millennia all over the world, though most people are unaware of it because they're too busy apologizing for the Crusades. Islam Watch, a site run by former Muslims, has a collection of articles on the history of Jihad.

      I'm sorry but linking to a website blocked by corporate firewalls for being racist / Islamophobic is not the greatest source. I have been reading that. I can't say it's journalism... Linking Ottoman invasions to justify the war in Iraq is basically sick. But you might find comfort in this kind of "stories".

      I believe the people, army or mercenaries engaging in a terrorist act are by extension terrorists... Ok, maybe I'm over-stretching here? Soldiers executing orders... hum moral dilemma.

      The word terrorist is really overused today.

      My god you formidably fail to read (or understand) the main piece of information and bounce on the less relevant part. The word terrorism is well defined... Oxford English Dictionary: "government by intimidation". But is was quite extended. Despite that the definition of the invasion of Iraq falls into most definitions you can find.

      That doesn't make any coherent sense. Being serious means you're trolling? Yeah, whatever.

      Yes... I see you are quite limited.

      How dare those fascist pigs even exist!

      Yay! You did it! Sarcasm... +1 point for the extra effort!

      Riots are the result of strong problems in a country

      Yeah, problems like police officers chasing people and sitting in cars.

      I should stop assuming everyone has the same level of knowledge... My quote was a reference to the deep problem of French immigration policy, to the political tensions and other factors which led french youth from lower classes to the streets as well as set french students on strike (political leftist sabotage and agitation). Please don't use the French riots as an example as you are too far from the topic.

      I know there's also a civil war in Iraq.

      Just tell me how many bombings and Islamic crimes have been committed under Sadams rule, where were those terrorist when Sadam let his nationalist regime strip his country of t

    81. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      You tell me you know/are pretty sure/whatever then prove it. Don't affirm thing you imagined. Your imagination and belief is no proof. You're too lazy and dumb (or have you never been in the army?) buthere you go.

      Like I already told you, it's an absurd claim. You might as well call me lazy and dumb for not attempting to refute the claim that soldiers deployed to Iraq are equipped with water pistols.

      I'll spare you the effort of clicking:

      I don't see how this proves that as a rule US troops are not educated in laws of warfare. Abu Ghraib was a total fuckup in general, and it occured years ago.

      I will not link to previously linked articles (as you obviously did not even click on the links) which show executions of prisoners and wounded... or is that part of the Geneva Conventions?

      This is the old "since the US military is not perfect, they're all savage murderers" argument.

      Am I? I lived in different countries, cultures and places. I adapt quite well. And I understand how rules are applied and enforced in the places I live. I talk to people come to know and understand them and their story... listen to their personal stories. As an immigrant I learn to play by the local rules.

      Doesn't mean you can't be a multiculturalist drone. You certainly sound like one.

      Have you been assaulted by someone looking a bit tanned? This would explain a shift of stance and a perception of continual persecution (you display this erratic behavior in most of your posts).

      My shift of perception started when I began to wonder why Muslims all over the world were having fits of hysterical, homicidal rage over some pictures drawn in Denmark. Speaking of which, caricatures of Mohammed recently caused a few deaths in Nigeria.

      I'm sorry but linking to a website blocked by corporate firewalls for being racist / Islamophobic is not the greatest source.

      Hah hah. A site run by former Muslims is Islamophobic and racist. That's a good one. Maybe you shouldn't blindly trust some stupid webfilter. Many Finnish ISPs maintain a blacklist of sites provided by the police. Before I switched to OpenDNS, I was regularly prevented from accessing absolutely 100% legal sites because the idiots in charge of the list weren't too specific about what sites they included.

      I have been reading that. I can't say it's journalism... Linking Ottoman invasions to justify the war in Iraq is basically sick. But you might find comfort in this kind of "stories".

      As I suspected, this is hopeless. You will simply deny historical facts because they just don't happen to fit your ideology.

      My god you formidably fail to read (or understand) the main piece of information and bounce on the less relevant part. The word terrorism is well defined... Oxford English Dictionary: "government by intimidation". But is was quite extended. Despite that the definition of the invasion of Iraq falls into most definitions you can find.

      A lot of words are well defined. Doesn't mean they can't be abused until they lose all meaning.

      Yes... I see you are quite limited.

      How the fuck can you argue that being serious is trolling? That's completely batshit crazy.

      I should stop assuming everyone has the same level of knowledge... My quote was a reference to the deep problem of French immigration policy, to the political tensions and other factors which led french youth from lower classes to the streets as well as set french students on strike (political leftist sabotage and agitation). Please don't use the French riots as an example as you are too far from the topic.

      Similiar riots (and other problems) occur in many others places in Europe. Immigrants from

    82. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lose either way, but at least I save time and effort by not bothering with links. Just stop posting then.
    83. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Stanistani · · Score: 1

      Ok, I defended your freedom of speech you, and said you shouldn't be modded down.

      You're welcome.

      You're just a troll, and I won't feed you any more.

    84. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Calling someone a troll without a reason constitutes trolling. Oh, the irony.

    85. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      No. Why would I?

    86. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's useless.

    87. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Ok, thanks for that insightful observation.

    88. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      read the rules and stick to them (link to sources!).

      Having an opinion that differs from Slashdot's leftist dogma is not against any rule that I'm aware of.

      I might have been unclear. The rules mention clearly linking to sources as being an essential part of the /. "dogma".

      This is the old "since the US military is not perfect, they're all savage murderers" argument.

      What does that have to do with you not reading linked sources?

      Like I already told you, it's an absurd claim.

      Prove it.

      soldiers deployed to Iraq are equipped with water pistols.

      This is an absurd claim, it appears that M16A2 Qualification and Bayonet are part of the basic training... But I found no mention of any courses about Human rights nor Geneva convention anywhere in any of the US army courses. Once again, I might be wrong... but as I did read and hear such testimonies (no such human rights training being given) I believe I am right, and you are uninformed or lying.

      Hah hah. A site run by former Muslims is Islamophobic and racist. That's a good one.

      A typical reaction from people who can't fit in a new or foreign environment is to start denigrating, criticizing and even harming their former community. I have witnessed that behavior too often... It's really sad. I am not telling the people from jihadwatch and islamwatch are in that position... but they are neither journalists neither historians. They write their partisan ideas, they introduce unrelated historical facts and try to make them fit in their views...
      The posts on their sites are not news... these are views.

      By the way, why exactly shouldn't I use French riots as an example of... French riots?

      Because you try to use these riots to prove islam is the "root cause of the fall of humanity" (I exaggerated this claim for a humorous purpose). You have no knowledge of the situation and (Left wing) media frenzy (against N. Sarkozy) which led to those riots... Neither have you any idea of the proportion of muslims, catholics, atheists, nihilists or any other trouble makers in these riots. Therefore your claims are unproven and void. Seeing your reticence to link to any news or any solid source it's doubtful you have anything valid to say about this subject.

      Similiar riots [...] occur in many others places in Europe

      Could you give links to 3 or 4 examples?

      Immigrants from Islamic societies are the common link between all of them.

      Do you have any statistics or news to support our claim? Or (to quote you) "is there no source for your claims because it was obviously made up as another example?"

      I'm sorry if I don't buy the standard explanation that The Man is oppressing them. When everything, absolutely everything, is always The Man's fault, the explanation starts to become as credible as the Zionist Conspiracy.

      I don't either... but you are quick at generalizing. You forget the social and humanitarian context in Africa and the middle East. Islam is used as a pretext and a tool. It's the only knowledge and morale framework most people have in countries like Nigeria. They have no clue about civil laws nor any national or international education. Nigeria is a country where a coup is the best way to get to power, where the average person saw 3 civil wars and lost members of his familly in conflicts, When law is enforced by militias with no federal oversight (and no knowledge of federal laws either) you can't expect much discernment from the average citizen. Most Nigerian don't see their identity represented by the Nation but by the tribe they come from. In a similar fashion most of Middle East has no significant national identity, n

    89. Re:Traveling while Muslim or Middle Eastern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lose either way, but at least I save time and effort by not bothering with links. It's useless.
  4. Yet another reason to use linux by Aranykai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lets see them figure out how to access Microsoft Word without their fancy "Start" button.

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    1. Re:Yet another reason to use linux by 77Punker · · Score: 1

      Actually, they'll find that Enlightenment is superior to XP! They'll figure it out in no time because surely the people who are going to outsmart terrorist masterminds are smart enough to learn to use a new GUI!

    2. Re:Yet another reason to use linux by pdwalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All it means is that those retards would be more likely to confiscate it because they don't recognize what it is.

    3. Re:Yet another reason to use linux by aywwts4 · · Score: 1
      Something tells me that this "Hacker OS" would probably get you a hand up your ass and then sent straight to gitmo.

      I highly recommend putting windows 2000 or something as your first partition, change the background to puppies, and install a bunch of spyware, leave it on overnight, it will do the job of making it look like it is really used.

      --
      Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
    4. Re:Yet another reason to use linux by sempernoctis · · Score: 1

      My laptop has a biometric login...are they going to seize my finger?

  5. wow! by A3gis · · Score: 2, Funny

    The agent probably booted up World of Warcraft .. to check for terrorist activities of course
    - guess she just has to wait til he gets his nightelf to lvl 70

  6. Angus McKraken? by scottv67 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Angus McKraken brings us a Washington Post story about...

    Story submitter, are you related to Phil McKraken? I used to work with a guy named Phil McKraken. Well, I didn't really work *with* Phil but I heard him being paged on the overhead PA system quite often. He was paged at least once a day so I think he must have been fairly important.

    1. Re:Angus McKraken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Story submitter, are you related to Phil McKraken? I used to work with a guy named Phil McKraken. Well, I didn't really work *with* Phil but I heard him being paged on the overhead PA system quite often. He was paged at least once a day so I think he must have been fairly important. Is your real name Scott? Are you related to Ann Reynolds? Because she has a brother named Scott, and I used to date her briefly in college.
    2. Re:Angus McKraken? by scottv67 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is your real name Scott? Are you related to Ann Reynolds? Because she has a brother named Scott, and I used to date her briefly in college.

      Sigh...I tried to go for the easy "+1, Funny" this morning with the old "Phil McKraken" joke but it was all for naught. I guess "Al Coholic", "Oliver Clothesoff", and "Seymour Butz" wouldn't be funny either.

    3. Re:Angus McKraken? by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

      So I guess your real name must be Ben Dover?

  7. Re:Proprietary data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The chinese did it so it's ok for America to do it - Idiot

  8. Decoy Data by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mobile devices have very large storage, which can be compressed to varying degrees at will, better than 50% averaged across all data types. It wouldn't be very hard to make a filesystem (or other storage type) for any of them that stores an equal amount of fake data, with a fake password, with everything compressed in the same space as an uncompressed set of real data. Such a filesystem could look just like a real filesystem in every way, including total size, but hide the real data behind fake data and fake password. If it's all encrypted, it would be very hard to tell the difference, especially in an airport screening line.

    Of course, that would probably violate some law. And "only the bad guys" would do it. But if those bad guys actually have something to hide that also violates those security laws, then of course they'll break that law's "coverup" prohibitions, too.

    Terrorist and other criminal orgs with enough resources to be a real threat, and carry notebooks and phones around on flights they don't just blow up, will be able to afford such a filesystem. And once there is one in the wild, anyone will get it, probably for free.

    So this is yet another stupid simcurity (simulated security) measure. It's intimidation of everyone to scare us into thinking our government is "doing something severe" to terrorists, when it's just abusing our own freedom. While wasting everyone's time, eroding our trust of our government, and letting the terrorists go free.

    Sounds like they're already using sophisticated decoys at DHS: fake security to hide the dangerous absence of any real security.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Decoy Data by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      or maybe the U.S. government is just gathering data on how far they can push their citizens. Useful info.

    2. Re:Decoy Data by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's called TrueCrypt, and I use it everyday.

    3. Re:Decoy Data by argiedot · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you can do a similar thing with TrueCrypt's Hidden Volumes. You might want to give it a try if you're really interested in this stuff.

    4. Re:Decoy Data by Dielectric · · Score: 1

      Wrong branch, buddy. What you really want is Steganography, where you hide the good data in other more innocuous data. The trick is coming up with plausible deniability. If they see a program called Super Stenographer in your Start Menu, you're busted. You are required by federal law to disclose relevant passwords during a search, just like handing the keys to your car over to a police officer during a "probable cause" search. However, if you keep your decryption program off of the machine on a removable disk, there's a good chance they won't find it in a regular screening search. I think it's better to keep sensitive data off of anything that travels into an uncontrolled environment, which to me means anywhere outside of my data center. If you don't have it, they can't get it either.

    5. Re:Decoy Data by ocbwilg · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a simple fix to this. TrueCrypt supports hidden volumes. So you create a TrueCrypt encrypted volume, say of 2GB in size. Then you put a couple megabytes of data in it. Then you create the hidden volume within the encrypted volume, and put your real private data in there, using a different passphrase to encrypt the two volumes.

      Now when someone looks at your hard disk they see a single 2GB encrypted volume. They can get your password and decrypt that volume, but they can't see the second encrypted volume within the first. And because all of the data is encrypted you cannot tell the whitespace from encrypted data on the disk. It's pretty slick actually.

      I'd like to think that if I were confronted with this that I would tell the TSA agent to fuck off, then point out that anyone who wanted to get "contraband" material into or outside of the country wouldn't store it on their laptop to begin with. They'd put it on a memory stick that's hidden in their suitcase, or, more likely, keep in on a server outside of the US and access it remotely from a free WiFi AP at Panera. But once again we have security theatre at it's best.

    6. Re:Decoy Data by foobsr · · Score: 1

      or maybe the U.S. government is just gathering data on how far they can push their citizens. Useful info.

      Probably the 'Stanford Prison Experiment' on a larger scale?

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    7. Re:Decoy Data by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I don't want steganography.

      What I really want is this:

      https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/148440

      When _everybody_ has an encrypted partition in their default install, that's plausible deniability.

      --
    8. Re:Decoy Data by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      You are required by federal law to disclose relevant passwords during a search, just like handing the keys to your car over to a police officer during a "probable cause" search.

      Really? Please cite the law. I also seem to remember reading a story on this site a few days ago where a judge ruled just the opposite.

    9. Re:Decoy Data by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a simple fix to this.

      That's not a fix. That's a workaround, and a shitty one at that! The real fix is to destroy the TSA, and get our civil liberties back!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:Decoy Data by Agripa · · Score: 1

      It is a good thing the government would never shop around for an easily manipulated test case to undermine the Constitution and Bill of Rights:

      http://volokh.com/posts/1179865714.shtml

    11. Re:Decoy Data by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      destroy the TSA "Step over here, and keep your hands where I can see them!" ;-)
      --

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

    12. Re:Decoy Data by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Mobile devices have very large storage, which can be compressed to varying degrees at will, better than 50% averaged across all data types.

      Except the ones that take up the most space: video, music, and pictures.

      Such a filesystem could look just like a real filesystem in every way, including total size, but hide the real data behind fake data and fake password. If it's all encrypted, it would be very hard to tell the difference, especially in an airport screening line.

      Just try filling the drive with video, music, and pictures, and wonder why you can only fit half of what the free space suggested on the drive.

    13. Re:Decoy Data by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, those are already compressed, which is why the average is closer to 2:1 because of their max compression than to 50:1 from the rest of the more compressible data.

      We're comparing the uncompressed data to the compressed data.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    14. Re:Decoy Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess you haven't heard of TrueCrypt? It does exactly what you are talking about, except better. http://www.truecrypt.org/

    15. Re:Decoy Data by Dielectric · · Score: 1

      There's no specific law for passwords; it is an interpretation of laws covering obstruction of justice. If you don't, they simply get a warrant. If you still don't disclose, you're up for contempt and probably a slew of other infractions. I'm am curious about the case you cite, actually. I'm really glad to hear that the judge didn't just rubber-stamp it and presumably put some thought into the request.

    16. Re:Decoy Data by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Bravo, thousands before you have made the same point, anyone down there going to do anything about it?

    17. Re:Decoy Data by sempernoctis · · Score: 1

      Compression only works on certain types of data. It does not work on data that is already encrypted, or on data that is already compressed (like most audio, video, and similar formats that account for most large files) without degrading quality. There are several free software products already available for hiding one set of data in something else, usually in the free space on a file system or as background noise in audio, video, or images.

    18. Re:Decoy Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or rig everything up to boot from a usb key into an encrypted root partition, with a password required to unlock the key containing your system encryption keys. Allow them to turn the laptop on, sans usb key, and all they'll see is that pretty "No operating system found" message that corroborates your story about having just purchased a new hard drive.

    19. Re:Decoy Data by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I would demand that they get that warrant first. Why? Because simply submitting to searches without oversight sets a horrible precedent that will eventually whittle away at your right not to be compelled to testify against yourself and your right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. They have the tools by which to get the information they require, WITH OVERSIGHT, so make them use it.

    20. Re:Decoy Data by jecowa · · Score: 1

      Will destroying the TSA really get our fourth amendment back? It seems like we would also have to burn the patriot act.

      --
      my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
    21. Re:Decoy Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not what he wants, not at all. Try rereading his post.

    22. Re:Decoy Data by mikael · · Score: 1

      The latest mobile phones use the same type of memory cards that other electronics use - the local phone shop has memory cards that go up to 4 Gigabytes in memory; just to store music tracks, images, videos, ring-tones and games. All you need to do is buy a spare memory card, and you get a small plastic carrying box for free. The memory cards are actually multi-adaptor, so the actual data portion is about the size of a fingernail. Extremely easy to hide, and just as easy to lose.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    23. Re:Decoy Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Such a filesystem could look just like a real filesystem in every way, including total size, but hide the real data behind fake data and fake password. If it's all encrypted, it would be very hard to tell the difference, especially in an airport screening line.

      Yeah. And you could call it TFS -- the Terrorist File System.

    24. Re:Decoy Data by jdpipe · · Score: 1

      There's StegFS, a 'plausible deniability file system'... http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ih99-stegfs.pdf

    25. Re:Decoy Data by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      It seems like we would also have to burn the patriot act.

      You forgot the part where we hang George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bush's cabinet, and everyone in congress who voted for it.

    26. Re:Decoy Data by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Fine, then cite the cases which follow that interpertation.

    27. Re:Decoy Data by tkw954 · · Score: 1

      The problem with truecrypt is that, if they can compel you to give up your first password and the means of unencrypting the data (i.e that you used TrueCrypt), they can easily find out that TrueCrypt supports hidden volumes. They will then use the same method to compel you to give up the second password. Unfortunately, if you don't have a second volume, there is no way to prove it to them, so they will continue to "compel" you until you're no longer any use to them.

    28. Re:Decoy Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what that would do to our unemployment rate?

      Why do you hate America?

    29. Re:Decoy Data by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      The problem with truecrypt is that, if they can compel you to give up your first password and the means of unencrypting the data (i.e that you used TrueCrypt), they can easily find out that TrueCrypt supports hidden volumes. They will then use the same method to compel you to give up the second password. Unfortunately, if you don't have a second volume, there is no way to prove it to them, so they will continue to "compel" you until you're no longer any use to them.

      Knowing that you used TrueCrypt and that TrueCrypt supports hidden volumes is irrelevant. It's still not possible to tell whether there is a second encrypted volume hiding inside the first volume, or if it is just whitespace unless you have the key for the hidden valume and are trying to actively "unencrypt the whitespace."

    30. Re:Decoy Data by tkw954 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that since there are lots of better single layer encryption packages, there is no reason to use TrueCrypt unless you are going to use the hidden volume function. Therefore, if you use TrueCrypt it is assumed that there are two passwords that must be recovered. God help the suspected user who *doesn't* use the hidden volume feature.

      It would be OK if TrueCrypt allowed an unlimited number of hidden volumes such that the interrogator would never know if there was one more password to coerce out of you.

  9. ship it first by dammy · · Score: 0

    Just ship the laptop/cellphone/pda to your destination first so it will be there prior to your arrival. Ship it back prior to your departure and avoid the headaches. With cheap laptops like EEE PC, it's a minor business expense to have a travelling light laptop shipped back and forth.

    1. Re:ship it first by eharvill · · Score: 1

      Or just put it in your checked baggage.

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
  10. Can you do this? by yabos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you don't want your stuff taken can't you just tell them to fuck off and leave the airport. That is if you're in your own country I mean.

    1. Re:Can you do this? by MichaelKaiserProScri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am unclear if that is being offered as an option. If I cannot take my laptop with me on a business trip, there is no point in doing the trip. I am a Software Engineer and my laptop is the primary tool with which I do my job. If I do not have it, I cannot work. Furthermore, in many cases the contents of my laptop are far more valuable than the device itself. As far as I am concerned, the device is disposable, the data is what is valuable. Yes, I keep a backup, but there is always that last little bit I have just done that is not in the backup yet....

    2. Re:Can you do this? by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes you do have the option to tell them to Fuck-off.

      That gives you the free anal cavity search option. and no you cant just walk away from them, that let's them tase you and then anal search you. Every single TSA agent has a major anus fetish going, when you pay them $11.50 an hour you cant be picky, so they hire them fresh from the prisons.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Can you do this? by yabos · · Score: 1, Redundant

      That's what's BS about this whole TSA crap. You go into a private building and they don't let you leave under your own will, basically holding you hostage if they think they have any reason to do it. You should be allowed to leave the airport if they don't want to let you on the plane without searching your ass.

    4. Re:Can you do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Carry a USB thumbdrive containing your bootable operating system and toolset and another USB thumbdrive containing all your source code, data, documentation, etc. Also, carry a USB thumbdrive containing useless content which you are willing to surrender to the fascist overlords. Keep the real thumbdrives in a pcoet inside your jacket maybe disguised as a pack of gum.

      When I traveled on military projects I used to line "You do not have the necessary security clearance. But you can telephone General X if you really insist." I was able to glide through security screening without a problem.

    5. Re:Can you do this? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with you using a thumb drive to transport the data, etc. is that they'd just find that too
      and confiscate it.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    6. Re:Can you do this? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe you'll have to get your drive implanted, with bluetooth connection to your laptop. OTOH if they find that, seizure will literally hurt.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Can you do this? by legirons · · Score: 1

      So you have to encrypt everything and upload it to a server before travelling to the US?* then download your home directory when you arrive and decrypt it?

      Sounds like you will also need two hard disks -- one for travelling, one for normal use.

      It would be significantly easier to install a fresh OS on your "willing to let the americans tamper with it" disk, and use that one when travelling. So when you return home, you can put your regular disk back in, and have all your settings intact.

      * for anyone who actually wants to visit the US that is...

    8. Re:Can you do this? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I am unclear if that is being offered as an option. If I cannot take my laptop with me on a business trip, there is no point in doing the trip. I am a Software Engineer and my laptop is the primary tool with which I do my job. If I do not have it, I cannot work.

      Send the data on an encrypted bootable DVD beforehand, and then just buy a laptop when you arrive (or send it by mail too, if you're feeling lucky).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:Can you do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send the data on an encrypted bootable DVD beforehand, and then just buy a laptop when you arrive (or send it by mail too, if you're feeling lucky).
      That sounds really convenient.
    10. Re:Can you do this? by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      As lame as this sounds, I'd just ship a spare laptop with a current backup on it. Just before you depart, backup the current laptop and leave it at home. When you arrive, download your changes. Before you leave, upload your changes and ship the laptop back. If your laptop is that crucial to business, your business should be able to afford two.

      The other option would be to check the laptop and not carry it on. I doubt they do much of anything with checked laptops. That's a pain, but just read a book instead of having your laptop with you.

  11. not that i'd really want to by memnock · · Score: 1

    myself, but what if you shipped your laptop to and from wherever you were going by
    FedEx or whatever?

    i don't travel much and probably wouldn't take my laptop anyway, so i don't worry about it, but this is beyond intrusive and annoying.

    1. Re:not that i'd really want to by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      myself, but what if you shipped your laptop to and from wherever you were going by
      FedEx or whatever?

      They still open the package in the customs and charge you heavily just for opening it. And they can do whatever they want to with it while it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.

      Therefore, many layers of TrueCrypt, fake data, semi-real data, and what-not else...
      What does TSA stand for, anyway? Techno Stasi of America?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:not that i'd really want to by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      I don't think you realize how many packages FedEx ships daily.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:not that i'd really want to by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I don't think you realize how many packages FedEx ships daily.

      If it has to go through customs, it is subject to inspection just like anything else that's going through customs.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    4. Re:not that i'd really want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're shipping a laptop across borders, there is no way for the agent to see that the owner looks suspicious (i.e. Arab), pressure anybody to give them passwords, or question anybody about it. In the end, I suspect that shipping a laptop makes it far less likely to be searched and almost certainly not confiscated.

      And the bonus is that if your laptop somehow doesn't make it to its destination, you can send another one. That way you know it will be there when you arrive. If the data is secret, you can encrypt it with a one-time pad. Carry the decryption key with you on a CD and you're good to go!

      dom

    5. Re:not that i'd really want to by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      What does TSA stand for, anyway? Techno Stasi of America?

      "Taxes Standing Around". The most useless motherfuckers in government who don't have the word "fish" in the department name.

      --saint

    6. Re:not that i'd really want to by Kpau · · Score: 1

      I have a habit of buying CDs and books from Japan (yes, its my downfall) .... the last CD I purchased from cdjapan had been clearly opened and "checked out" by "Customs" in the US. The labels they stuck on it even confused my local post office ("hey, boss. These labels don't make sense."). And I mean the mysterious goblins at the TSA/Customs opened the CD case, tearing the jacket sheet. Then the rewrap was a mess. Wow, I feel so much safer ..... idiots probably couldn't read Japanese and thought it was porn instead of music and were hoping for "hot asian babes on grits" action. I'd vote for the Anarchist Party this time but they don't seem to be on the ballot. All I see is "Nanny-Fascists" and "Christo-Corporo-Fascists".

  12. Well you gotta understand. by skulgnome · · Score: 1

    A security guard's pay is minimal. They're just doing whatever they can to make ends meet.

    1. Re:Well you gotta understand. by chakmol · · Score: 1

      From the article: Hollinger said customs officers "are trained to protect confidential information."

      Pay is probably minimal, and oh that good training! At my company, "trained" means you've seen a 10 minute video on the subject. You don't even have to watch it, you can read a magazine while it's playing. As long as you were "present" in the room while it was running, you're trained.

  13. One more reason not to visit US by ms1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a great way to find out about company secrets. And if they are on an encrypted volume? Dare you travel there anymore?

  14. Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    where a traveler would be better off shipping his or her laptop separately rather than trying to take it on a plane. This is starting to get out of hand: confiscating personal property without cause? What the Hell? The government must be running short on laptops, I guess. Twenty years ago I'd have said this could never happen here, if anyone had asked. Sorry to see that I'd have been wrong.

    In 1984, I remember my aunt flew from Chicago to Boston, with a .44 Magnum and a box of cartridges in her suitcase. Nobody noticed, nobody cared, she didn't even think twice about it (I'll tell you though, had there been any boxcutter-wielding bastards on that plane she'd have killed them all. You don't know my aunt.) Can you imagine trying that today? One group of Islamic assholes causes some damage and just look at what we've done to ourselves.

    I'm still proud of my country but not as much as I used to be. That bothers me. What also bothers me is that bad behavior on the part of the TSA and other government organs is in danger of becoming institutionalized, which will make it very difficult to eliminate.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by jmauro · · Score: 1

      The explosive decompression is just an urban legend. Please stop repeating it.

    2. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by jawtheshark · · Score: 2, Informative

      when her .44 blew a hole through the perp and into the fuselage, causing a violent decompression
      Ahem...
      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    3. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      When I worked at UPS, there was a 727 there that had been shot several times (5 or 6 times I think) when it was still a passenger aircraft (from about 35k ft with a 38; you could also find the patches if you knew where to look). It caused no problems other than freaking out the passengers. The plane didn't decompress and it landed safely.

      Commercial aircraft are a little more durable than that. Ask any pilot.

      --
      Gone!
    4. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's lucky it wasn't stolen. In the 80's I was losing so much stuff to theft from bags that I quite packing things like camera and radio. Hell, in the 70's, the good American police tried to arrest us using their personal weed as evidence. We had none of our own. They were too stupid to be a real threat. It was worse in Ecuador where I had to scurry away from a disagreement being settled with automatic weapons and hand granades. Ended up being deported because someone didn't receive their bribe. It was not so bad in China in the 70's. The secret police were not very good and quite corrupt. Give up a bit of porn and some whiskey, and they'd leave you alone for days. Then there was the attractive female agent from China who I met in Fiji. She spent 6 months in the sack with me before she realized I was just some yahoo who liked to travel and not a spy :-). So you can see, it's not all bad.

    5. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, I'm well aware of that and I knew someone would point it out (this being Slashdot) but that's only an issue if the plane is traveling at cruising altitude. If you're going to shoot a terrorist, wait until the plane is down to a couple thousand feet. You can survive a few holes then (hell, a plane coming in to Florida some years ago lost a good part of the upper fuselage, and other than one flight attendant being sucked out, nobody else was killed.)

      Whether or not passengers should be armed or not is really a separate issue, I was just commenting on the difference between how we perceive security since that time (although a heavily-armed populace tends to be secure against people with boxcutter knives.) Sure, if some security person had noticed that gun, it would have been confiscated, she might have been questioned, but there wouldn't have been much more to it than that. Nowadays ... well, I'd probably be visiting her in prison, because the presumption would be that she intended to do harm with that weapon. Guilty, and we don't much care if you're innocent. Back then, the presumption would have been that she made a mistake.

      More to the point, it's hard for me to understand how stealing laptops helps me be more secure (if you confiscate something and never return it, well, pretty much you just stole it.) Demonstrating that a device functions as expected ... okay, I guess I can buy that. At least you know it's not a dummy packed full of C4. But insisting that passengers reveal passwords, and then just confiscating the equipment anyway? What is going on here? The government can call it "intelligence gathering" if it wants, but this is way out of line.

      Time for that TrueCrypt partition, I guess.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's not exactly safe, though:

      "It's not all fiction. If an airliner's window was shattered, the person sitting beside it would either go out the hole or plug it - which would not be comfortable." Hardly 'explosive decompression', but it has happened (people going out those windows, not the windows being shot out).
    7. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by jmauro · · Score: 1

      The point is not everyone would be killed at once as indicated by the great grandparent.

    8. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by ari{Dal} · · Score: 1

      Except that a small hole in a plane's fuselage won't cause violent decompression. Mythbusters very effectively busted that myth quite some time back. Hell, there are documented cases of planes losing entire chunks of fuselage due to stress and corrosion and landing successfully (see Aloha Airlines Flight 243).

      --
      Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
    9. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by flewp · · Score: 1

      Highly unlikely. At least it's highly unlikely EVERYONE would die. There's been instances of explosive decompression (and all from holes much bigger than a bullet hole) where the plane has gone on to safely land. Hell, an entire section of roof blew off an airliner (Aloha Airlines Flight 243), and the only death was a stewardess, who was not buckled in to a seat.

      Fact is, a bullet hole (or 2, or 3, or 6) are not large enough to cause catastrophic explosive decompression capable of killing everyone on board.

      Mythbusters, while not exactly highly scientific also tested the myth. They sealed a 737 and pressurized it so that the difference in air pressure was the same as if the plane had been at something like 30,000 feet. Bullet holes did nothing. They had to actually resort to explosives to get any kind of result, and even then only the dummy's arm was sucked out the hole.

      You're also assuming that she would hit the walls of the plane. There's a good chance a gun battle would be fought up and down the airliner from one end to the other, not from across the aisles. This means there's a good chance the bullets would strike seats, passengers, or bulkheads instead of the fuselage. Even though a .44 round is a pretty hefty round, it might not have enough energy after "blowing a hole through a perp" to even penetrate the fuselage (a lot of this would depend on the type of bullet).

      I believe Boeing has also done tests that show it to be safe. And there's also been incidents of terrorists discharging small arms fire inside airliners, with no explosive decompression.

      And if there was a serious threat of this, do you really think the FAA and the Airline Pilots Association (or whatever it's called) would have voted to allow air marshals to carry pistols?

      A few instances of explosive decompression resulting from holes much more serious than a bullet hole(s):
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390



      And an article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26481

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    10. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      "You can survive a few holes then (hell, a plane coming in to Florida some years ago lost a good part of the upper fuselage, and other than one flight attendant being sucked out, nobody else was killed.)"

      It sounds like you are thinking of this.

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    11. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by Fnord666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Parent post links to Mythbusters for cripes sake.
      Ok, we need a new form of Godwin's Law that applies to real scientific investigation and Mythbusters.
      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    12. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It would not cause a violent decompression, merely a leak. The outflow valve at the back of the fuselage would just close slightly as a consequence. An airliner's pressurization system can easily cope with some bullet holes.

    13. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      I'm still proud of my country but not as much as I used to be. That bothers me. What also bothers me is that bad behavior on the part of the TSA and other government organs is in danger of becoming institutionalized, which will make it very difficult to eliminate.

      That sums up how I feel really well. I'm sadly disturbed that people don't take a minute to think about what they're giving up in the face of fear. And they're so convinced they've got the answers. So strange.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    14. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      A few smallarms holes isn't likely to bother much at cruise altitude either. The environmental control system pumps tons of air into the fuselage and can compensate for considerable leakage.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    15. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by crossmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I'm still proud of my country"

      I'm not trying to troll here, but why?
      America might have once been great, but what's really happened there in the last 10 years, 20 years to be proud of? Scandal after scandal, poor social policy after poor social policy, increasing ignorance and almost xenophobia, patent trolling, enron, cops abusing people (AND nothing being done about), civil liberties washed away, copyright madness, etc, etc. I'm sure there have been the odd medical and scientific advance but I'm not allowed to have a free though about those without paying a royalty to some major company.

      When I was a teenager I used to think it would be cool to move to the states. Wages were so much higher, a better climate, etc.
      Now I have to fly there occasionally for work, and I dread it.

    16. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not trying to troll here, but why?

      Yes, you are. And there are still a lot of good things happening in this country, and for the most part I enjoy my life here. Then again, you don't live here and apparently most of what you know you get through the media or from Slashdot, so I suppose your attitude should be expected.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    17. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by hrtserpent6 · · Score: 1

      Not to be a dick, but where in the world do you live where things are getting better, not worse when it comes to personal freedoms? Certainly not the UK, the EU, Sweden, or Australia. That doesn't leave many industrialized democratic nations, bub.

    18. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by crossmr · · Score: 1


      Yes I get a lot through the media, your media.
      I also have numerous friends in the US, and travel there occasionally for business and so do numerous of my coworkers. My exposure isn't limited to some fourth party tales of the fabled America. You are the one who brought up the fact that despite its recent failings you're still proud. Educate the unwashed masses.

    19. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Never said it was getting better, just said it wasn't getting worse. Would you like to know the difference?
      When the cops taser someone in the US and its inappropriate, some backroom individual reviews it and rubber stamps it. Any idiot with a brain can see when a cop is acting inappropriately in the US, and its often video taped. Here we have a public inquiry in to it, people don't let it get swept under the rug.

    20. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pssht. Name one developed country that does have scandal after scandal, or poor social policy after poor socialy policy, increasing ignorance and xenophobia? The rest of the developed world has 70% income tax rates, ostracizes Jews, and relegates Arabs into ghettos until they go nuts and riot.

      The "odd" medical and scientific advance? Haha. Name one major medical or scientific advance that did not involve the United States. Without America, the rest of the world would have no medicines because we, the brutish Americans, overpay for our medication so you can get yours at a discount. And I was not aware that European or Asian companies did not charge royalties on any of their inventions. Oh, wait. They do.

      And how did you fly to the US? On a Boeing, I bet. An American company.

    21. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      You are the one who brought up the fact that despite its recent failings you're still proud.

      And why should I not be? I did not say that I was proud of what the TSA is doing, or anything else of that nature. Had you actually read the rest of my post you might have grasped that, instead you immediately focused on something you felt you could use to minimize or demean an American.

      Thing is, there's a hell of a lot more to this country and its people than one errant Administration. The United States is a complicated place, far more so than many countries simply because of the diversity of those who have made their home here. In your infinite wisdom, you have decided that we are a worthless people because of the actions of a few. Should I make the same claim about Iraq's people? How about Russia and China? Should I pigeonhole billions of human beings as being unworthy of having pride in their respective cultures, and all they have to offer, just because I don't agree with their leaders or their policies? No? Well, that's what you're doing to our 300 million or so. A very narrow vision.

      You, my friend, need to broaden your horizons, not me.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    22. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by phayes · · Score: 1

      a plane coming in to Florida some years ago lost a good part of the upper fuselage
      The flight you're referring to occurred in Hawaii, not Florida. In addition, as the flight was between Hawaii & Hilo the accident occurred at a relatively low altitude.
      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    23. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by crossmr · · Score: 1, Troll

      Really? Where did I say Americans were worthless? Go back and check, I didn't. People as individuals are not to be confused with the country and how its being run. I simply asked what you had to be proud of lately given all that has gone on. You still can't answer it though can you? There are vague allusions, but you danced around the issue. In fact you gave a very political answer.

      I asked honestly because I was very curious. I don't live there, I have limited first hand exposure to the US but see it through the eyes of friends, who aren't exactly proud, and the media. I gave you my view of what I've seen, and instead of answering the question you've gone on the offensive. Twice.

      I have no choice but to read a lot of your press. Besides freedom, the main export of the US is itself. You can always dig up those great human interest stories, but as a society I haven't really seen anything worth writing home about in a long time. I also see America through two kinds of friends. Those who have lived their all their lives and those who have gone there to study. Racism seems to be rampant, even if your institutions of "higher learning". That has nothing to do with your current administration. Bush may have done a lot to mess up the country, but society has done a pretty good job on their own. Cops being given a pass on inappropriate behaviour has nothing to do with the current administration. People suing each other over spilled milk happened long before he found his way in to the white house. As a society, America has been viewed as arrogant for a long time. If you weren't aware of that perhaps you need to broaden your horizons.

      There is a theory floated about why game developers are so obsessed with the World War 2 genre. Its because that was the last time America had a clear and unambiguous military victory. That was 60 years ago, yet how many times have they picked up arms since then?

      I was simply hoping to find out if there was some great societal aspect there which I missed, but apparently there isn't as your two answers have really told me all I need to know.

    24. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it's getting to the point where a traveler would be better off shipping his or her laptop separately
      No, it is not. It's gotten to the point where a traveler is be better of staying home.
    25. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Ok, we need a new form of Godwin's Law that applies to real scientific investigation and Mythbusters.
      I propose we call it "Fnords Law"
      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    26. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by mikestro · · Score: 0

      I am sorry you feel this way, but it's really not that bad here.

      A bit warmer too I might add. :)

    27. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are. And there are still a lot of good things happening in this country, and for the most part I enjoy my life here. Then again, you don't live here and apparently most of what you know you get through the media or from Slashdot, so I suppose your attitude should be expected. It sums up nicely the outside view of the US though.

      I know that I take pains to avoid stops there during long flights for fear of missing the second plane and I don't intend to visit again until the current insanity has abated (assuming it ever does).
      Luckily I don't have any business there currently. While it's not the rule, I do get the occasional horror story from people around me (being French doesn't help apparently). Typically though, the security people seem to just be obnoxious.

      And as someone who travels a little (about 2 or 3 out of Europe trips per year, definitely not to "resort" kind of airports), I can say that I haven't yet met airport security people who are actively disagreeable. Inefficient, often, requiring bribes, sometimes (increasingly rarely), but that's pretty much the extent of it.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    28. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by PodBayDoor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amazing. You claim he can't know about America, but you claim to know the ways he knows about it. You are the +5 generalisation about America.

    29. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by TheWizardOfCheese · · Score: 1

      I see from your signature that you have a chip on your shoulder about this. Or maybe, judging by your post, you are well-balanced and are carrying a chip on both shoulders. Every human group thinks it's superior to other groups - it's the way we are wired. And most people in every country, even very poor ones, enjoy their lives. Beyond ordinary xenophobia, what makes you think America is so special? And how would you know so much about other countries anyway? You don't live there and apparently most of what you know you get through the media or Slashdot. For that matter, what do you know about America? You don't live in every state, let alone every county. America is a big place - bigger than your imagination.

      --

      "The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
    30. Re:Sounds like it's getting to the point ... by e-scetic · · Score: 1

      You remind me of an old quote:

      "A man who has had his dinner is no revolutionary."

      Apparently, as long as YOU'RE happy and enjoying yourself, you'll do nothing. You're part of the reason it's happening in the first place because, well, as long as it's not happening to you everything is just fine and you won't complain. In fact, quite the opposite? You dutifully pipe up saying you're proud of your country and what it's become?

      Geez, that reminds me of another quote:

      "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

  15. TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say use TrueCrypt for all files you want to keep private, with a hidden volume within. Plausable deniability and you can hand over the password there and then for the dummy volume. With the current release and the ability to encrypt whole disks from boot, there's no reason not to use it.

    Screw them. I know I'd not give over a password to my laptop on principle, even if it meant a lost flight.

    1. Re:TrueCrypt by base3 · · Score: 1

      Think they haven't heard about hidden volumes? If they know you're using TrueCrypt, they'll say, oh, that's nice, thank you, then they'll detain you until you give up the hidden volume password, whether it exists or not. You might be able to sort it out in front of a judge and jury (if they believe you) later, but you'll still miss your flight.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    2. Re:TrueCrypt by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, what if you have have two hidden volumes?

      First you give the password for the "normal" encrypted volume.

      Then when they ask you for the hidden volume, you first hesitate, and then give them the password for the safe hidden partition. That partition should contain stuff which doesn't get you in trouble, but for which it's plausible that you wouldn't want anyone to see it. I guess they won't assume you have a second hidden volume.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:TrueCrypt by base3 · · Score: 1

      IMO, the apparent use of any encryption at all is going to make them suspicious. Here's what I'd recommend in this climate of electronic fishing expeditions: Make sure the machine boots straight into a mostly clean XP / Vista / MacOS (not Linux--it'll confuse and scare them) with no GRUB menu, no obvious encryption tools, and some innocent business documents with recent timestamps on the desktop. Keep the encrypted stuff on CDs in your checked bad and have it available over the network when you arrive. Don't even have the encryption tools installed--download those when you arrive. Sad? Yes, but this nation of sheep has allowed it to get this far, and being a goat amongst the sheep isn't going to go well for the individual goat these days.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    4. Re:TrueCrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it's called plausible deniability. 'Whats a hidden volume? My company just needs the data to be encrypted, so we use truecrypt.' No amount of badgering can make you give up a hidden password when the volume is already decrypted right in front of you, unless they waterboard you. You may miss a flight, but at the end of the day you have legal comeback for it, as there is NO PROOF that you have withheld anything. There isn't even an implication of resistance, as you've already complied by supplying a correct decryption password.

      All my portable data uses truecrypt hidden volumes. I don't work hard enough to put recent data in the dummy volume though, which maybe I should work on. The US secret police can kiss my ass while I appear compliant with their (illegal IMO) requests. And I don't really have anything to hide, but the principle is more than sufficient to make me do it.

    5. Re:TrueCrypt by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Think they haven't heard about hidden volumes? You realise you are talking about the same people that believe that dihydrogen monoxyde is a dangerous chemical weapon and will confiscate it on sight ?

      On a side note has anyone had experience with getting a Linux machine past those guys ?
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    6. Re:TrueCrypt by base3 · · Score: 1

      Point taken--but a default installation of TrueCrypt is pretty obviously an encryption tool. The picture I have is that Joe the TSA guy sees the blue key icon and calls over another TSA guy that "knows computers" who uses TC to hide his porno collection from his wife. I wouldn't bring a Linux machine that didn't at least boot into Windows by default as I figure anything with scrolling text on boot looks too much like computers from the movies for their comfort level.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    7. Re:TrueCrypt by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Actually I don't know what TrueCrypt looks like in Windows, I had no idea there was an icon displayed in there... Sounds like it defeats the purpose.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  16. Get it in writing... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When he took it and you were "guaranteed" you would get it back in a few days, ask for it in writing, on headed paper, signed by the guy who took your laptop and his supervisor.

    --
    How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    1. Re:Get it in writing... by houghi · · Score: 1

      and then they either say no, or give you the paper that is absolutely worthless.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Get it in writing... by Renaissance+2K · · Score: 1

      This is a very smart thing to do, but I have the feeling these security officers are using the "your plane is about to leave, so hurry up and listen" factor to their advantage.

      How long would it take any reasonable person to prepare such a written guarantee? Now, how long would it take the security officer to prepare it?

  17. Is this the United States or some banana republic? by rpp3po · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't believe this happening in a country which promotes itself as a global exporter of freedom. Do Americans just sit at home and watch this as just another ironic comedy on their TVs?

  18. Sure -- you just miss your flight. by localroger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I'm pretty sure you don't get your airfare back. And you probably get on a list that makes sure it will happen every single time you ever try to fly again in the future. The stupid thing here is she did everything they asked, and they still stole her laptop. I can't see any rationalization for that.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:Sure -- you just miss your flight. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      StateSec's airport security monkey needed a new laptop?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Sure -- you just miss your flight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the article they cite their explanation for having the ability to search is laptop=suitcase.

      I'm not quite sure that argument holds water. The reason that they have the ability to search your suitcase is that you can pose an imminent threat with it (by using it as a weapon). The information on your laptop does not pose any significant imminent threat. If they want to argue that your laptop could be a physical weapon then they have no reason for passwords and such.

    3. Re:Sure -- you just miss your flight. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      she did everything they asked, and they still stole her laptop. I can't see any rationalization for that. They wanted the free laptop and abused their position to get it.
      The thing about "security"? A lie. It's not irrational, it's dishonest.
      --

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

    4. Re:Sure -- you just miss your flight. by yahyamf · · Score: 1
      1) Fly via US airport on a business trip
      2) Lie that TSA confiscated company laptop (It's not like they'll call your employer)
      3) Sell it on Ebay
      4) Profit!!!

      Seriously, that will put an end to this.

  19. You know why you can't get relief? by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Each component of the system, that is supposed to be separate, is in bed with those it is supposed to be a check against. This wouldn't surprise anyone who has paid attention to the way that police officers are treated by judges and prosecutors, especially in "liberal areas" for abusing their authority. In places like Northern Virginia, one of the bluest parts of the country, the prosecutors won't touch a cop who shoots and kills someone in a criminal way while on duty. The very argument for giving them their extra powers over the public is that they're professionals with how they use it, and yet they're more likely to be treated like a well-meaning retarded child with a handgun rather than a professional for whom human error should almost invariably be regarded at first blush as criminal negligence.

    The prosecutors will rarely try them, the judges will rarely sanction prosecutors who do things like hound a guy they know is innocent, etc. Why? Because in general, the people in law enforcement, the DA's office and the judiciary are bad apples, with a few good ones mixed in. This applies to federal agencies as well.

    1. Re:You know why you can't get relief? by green1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here it's almost the opposite, if a police officer makes a mistake (either on, or off duty) they prosecute more fully than any criminal, just to avoid the appearance of corruption.

      There was a case here a few years ago of a police officer who was attacked by a prisoner in a cell, he shot and killed the prisoner, the cop claimed self defence (that the criminal had grabbed for his gun and was shot in the struggle over the weapon). The case went to trial 3 times before the cop was finally convicted (first 2 cases resulted in hung juries) I can't think of any criminal that would have been tried 3 times to get the conviction, the case would have been dropped after the second trial for sure, but there was too much pressure to make it look like they were doing right, even if it meant going farther than they would ever normally do.

      This cop's life is now ruined over a decision that he had less than a second to make, that had potential life and death consequences for both him and the prisoner, and was analysed for several years afterwards.

      But then again... I don't live in the USA...

    2. Re:You know why you can't get relief? by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      Please. This happens everywhere, not just in the "bluest areas of the country." I know. I live in a Red State, and I know Public Defenders. I get to hear all about the cases where a Police officer testifies, in front of a judge that: a person, who they will not identify, who has provided the police with information, is in fact, NOT a confidential informant, and thus subject to discovery and disclosure to the defense. Despite the fact that said person also possesses information exculpatory to the defendant. Reason? "I didn't pay them." The judges only response? "Good luck with that on appeal!" And lets it slide. That's some fan-fucking-tastic impartiality there.

      This shit goes down everywhere.

      Then we have the lovely position taken by various attorney general's that they simply WILL NOT answer questions posed to them by congress, and WILL NOT investigate or prosecute Bush administration staff.

    3. Re:You know why you can't get relief? by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      especially in "liberal areas" for abusing their authority. In places like Northern Virginia, one of the bluest parts of the country, the prosecutors won't touch a cop who shoots and kills someone in a criminal way while on duty.

      Are you trying to smear "liberals" as pro-authoritarians or are you saying that even in "liberal" areas where one might expect cops to be held accountable they still aren't? Regardless, it's no better down here in Texas where cops can not only shoot people with impunity, they can beat them to the point of hospitalization just for the fun of it AFTER they are arrested and in booked into the jail.

    4. Re:You know why you can't get relief? by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

      Of either party, or degree of extremity, "liberal" would be the _last_ one I'd associate with protecting bad cops. As I understand 'em, liberals are the ones who want everyone equal, along the lines of the ACLU, the EFF, Greenpeace, etc. You're thinking of those assholes in the REPUBLICAN party, who never came across an onerous law - PATRIOT Act, anyone? - they didn't like, because _more_ control of the people is what's good for 'em, ya know. It wasn't liberals that were beating blacks in the streets during the Civil Rights wars; it was them Red-White-and-Blue TRUE-American conservatives.

      Honestly, what _are_ you smoking...?

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    5. Re:You know why you can't get relief? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... the prosecutors won't touch a cop who shoots and kills someone in a criminal way while on duty.

      To a cop, there are only three kinds of people in the world -- cops, cops' families and suspects.

      Cops get away with far too much illegal bullshit on the "acting in good faith" canard.

      Some time back, a crazy guy got shot to death by the California Highway Patrol. He got involved in a chase and ran into a grass- and weed-filled area between the freeway and an offramp. He bent over and picked up a rock to keep the cops at bay. They blew his ass away because "he might have had a gun". Sure -- the lucky bastard just hopped out of his car at an offramp where there happened to be a gun on the ground.

      Murderous fuckers.

  20. Use Fedex instead by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Just assume *all* items not directly related to the actual flight will be taken. Ship in your tools to your site via fedex/ups/usps and avoid the hassle ( and less to carry ).

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Use Fedex instead by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

      Which is another way of saying, "Just bend over, and don't even ask for lube. Take it like a man."

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    2. Re:Use Fedex instead by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      No, i consider it 'picking your battles'.

      This will be a long and drawn out war to regain our rights, and its just beginning. There is no need to be taken out so early by something so trivial.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  21. Good! by Fuzzums · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is a very good thing.

    Not only will it promote the whole idea of Freedom and help spread democracy in a non violent way, but as a result we will see that people will stop carrying around laptops or other portable storage devices.

    And THAT is a good thing. We will soon see a sharp decline of missing or stolen sensitive personal or company data, so this is good for our privacy.

    Instead people will start using VPN to get to their data.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:Good! by celle · · Score: 1

      sorry, frog. i'm not going to kiss you to turn you into my princess. i'm a software engineer. i have no time for a girl

      Then come here frog. I'm a geek, I'll kiss you and given my luck you'll be a firebreathing dragon princess with a gas problem. Of course it's the only chance at anything female I'll have so I guess I'll have to take it.

  22. 2 options.... by teeloo · · Score: 1

    A) Work with all documents remotely.
    B) If you really need to have your documents locally, just get a Mac and use Bootcamp and set it up to have one of the partitions blank, or nearly blank (a "dummy" bootup). So when they ask you to show your documents, you can show them that its a blank laptop. I doubt that they would be able to tell tell that there are other partitions on there.
    The important point is that you need to appease these customs people on the spot. DO NOT show any sort of defiance. Just play along and show them whatever they need to know in a calm and collected manner. Its very easy to fool them. Yes you can beat the system - it just takes a bit of planning.

    1. Re:2 options.... by jamar0303 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This can also be done with a normal PC and OSx86. My install will not boot into Mac OS without the install DVD in the drive. I do my work in Mac, put the DVD in my checked bag, then get on the plane. It'll boot straight into Windows without the disc, and since Windows can't read HFS+ it doesn't see the Mac partition.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    2. Re:2 options.... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      On the point of beating the system... You can get weed through the TSA on internal flights easier than you can get 3.5 oz of deodorant.

      To me that says any kind of solid explosive will get on the plane if it is in a non-conventional shape. So we are giving up tons of freedom for almost no protection.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:2 options.... by Nemetroid · · Score: 1

      Well yes you can, but you have to go to Disk Management. I suppose that they wouldn't check there but if you say it doesn't exist and they actually do check you would be in for trouble.

    4. Re:2 options.... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well yes you can, but you have to go to Disk Management. I suppose that they wouldn't check there but if you say it doesn't exist and they actually do check you would be in for trouble.

      I would imagine that anyone who did that often enough would be used to hidden partitions on the typical laptop, due to restore partitions being so common. Though if it's too big, it may still be suspect.

  23. I see a bright future for laptop rentals by localroger · · Score: 1

    If this keeps up I'll just bring my data on a USB key drive, and if they start searching or seizing those I'll hide it inside something innocuous. Lots of jobs I don't even take my computer any more because I just use my customer's computer.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:I see a bright future for laptop rentals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could coat a micro-SD card in wax, which your body can't digest, and then eat it. Unless it got lodged in your colon, in which case you'd have more problems than losing an SD card, you'd be able to poop it out and use it.

      As far as I am aware, unless you consent to it, no one can X-Ray you.

  24. Ohh man.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With all of this crap happening, I believe less people wants to do business with the united states. They got over-paranoid at trying to control what goes in-and-out of their country, and it irritates people over time. I really don't want to flamebait, but this is a racist issue? How many stories like that have we heard in the past years of people from the middle east having problem crossing the borders of the states?

  25. guilty until proven otherwise by bazorg · · Score: 4, Interesting
    interesting quote from TFA: Your kid can be arrested because they can't prove the songs they downloaded to their iPod were legally downloaded. Oh goody, when I immigrated to the UK I brought the MP3s but left the CDs behind. Got to remember leaving all music behind if travelling to the USA.

    Oh, and my laptop might be tricky to search... I wonder what procedures they have in place for people travelling with computers running alternative operating systems or simply in a language the officer cannot understand. 200 translators waiting behind the security booth? sounds practical.

    1. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      Oh, and my laptop might be tricky to search... I wonder what procedures they have in place for people travelling with computers running alternative operating systems or simply in a language the officer cannot understand. 200 translators waiting behind the security booth? sounds practical.

      The article title is "Examining the Search and Seizure of Electronics at Airports". What part of "Seizure" don't you comprehend? This is one place where running a non-Windows PC doesn't help you at all. In fact, it probably hurts you by guaranteeing that your laptop will be confiscated instead of merely searched.
      BTW, from what I had heard they were only allowed to do this to non-citizens are ports of entry/exit. If you're a citizen or travelling on a domestic flight you should be OK, right?

    2. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      The procedure is this: they take your laptop and you don't get it back.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by base3 · · Score: 1

      I wonder what procedures they have in place for people travelling with computers running alternative operating systems or simply in a language the officer cannot understand.
      Seizure of the suspicious foreign-looking laptop and possible detainment of the passenger.
      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    4. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by stuboogie · · Score: 1

      "interesting quote from TFA: Your kid can be arrested because they can't prove the songs they downloaded to their iPod were legally downloaded."

      Well, this was a quote from a consulting firm that is his prediction of what might happen if the search policies are not reigned in. I see it more of fear-mongering personally. How can someone be arrested in this case? The customs officers would have no probable cause to believe the songs were illegally obtained. Even if they were illegally obtained, it is a case of copyright infringement and not a criminal offense. (IANAL)

      In general, this policy seems to fall in line with the rest of the US policies regarding "potential terrorist suspects" in airports. Yes, they are focusing on people of certain race, religion or geographical relevance. Personally, I don't see this as being bigoted, but being logical and playing the odds. While there are terrorists who are not muslim or from the Middle East region, the primary threat is from terrorists who meet that distinction.

      Does this place more scrutiny and inconvenience on innocent individuals who happen to fall within these groups? Yes, most definitely. While I detest abuse of power, I believe focusing your resources in a manner that is statistically more efficient only makes sense.

      That being said, I believe the US is way over the line with this current policy of searching data. The only time they should have this right is:
      1. The person is already on an official watch list - meaning there is already substantial evidence that this person has ties to terrorism.
      2. The device does not appear to be a functioning device, but a "dummy device" - after inspecting through x-ray or physically, the device is believed to not be what it appears to be.
      In the 2nd case, I would then only allow the customs officer to ask you to turn on the device and show some functionality. Not actually copy data.

      We cannot allow unreasonable search and seizure of our property, even if it is electronic data. What is happening currently appears to be a data mining operation on anyone who falls within the criteria of "possible" security risk.

      Still, if you are traveling with unencrypted sensitive data, then you are taking the risk of losing that data already. The US government shouldn't be the thief you are worried about though.

    5. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by Detritus · · Score: 1
      BTW, from what I had heard they were only allowed to do this to non-citizens are ports of entry/exit. If you're a citizen or travelling on a domestic flight you should be OK, right?

      Customs agents can do just about anything to anyone, citizen or not. And it isn't just the USA. Legally, they can behave like psychotic assholes and there is nothing you can do about it. You have no rights when crossing a border.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    6. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by chocbar31 · · Score: 0

      Google will translate for free, at the click of a button...LOL! Hiding data will get your stuff TAKEN away from you, and possibly you and your business fined! Also, if there is an agent that is a geek, they will easily spot this type of activity. No matter what type of OS you use. I am a network engineer, I know Windows and Nix; which includes all versions of Linux, Mac, and Microsoft OS's.

      Morse code and punch cards were deciphered; your hard drive and its contents can be hacked even easier. I use Nix tools to do this at work for folks who loose their passwords or data.

      Encryption is to keep the "not for you eyes" colleagues and competition out, not skilled geeks or skilled agents.

      --
      This site is like CRACK; hooked on the first use!!!
    7. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by Detritus · · Score: 1

      In many cases, copyright infringement has been criminalized. If the intellectual property leeches had their way, any copyright infringement, except when they do it, would be a federal felony offense.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    8. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by ocbwilg · · Score: 1



      Somehow I think you're mistaken. I suspect that it very strongly depends on a) what side of the border you are on, and b) whether you are a citizen. Why? Because if you are an American citizen on the US side of a border checkpoint, you are technically in US territory and should have all of the rights and protection of all of the laws available to a US citizen in the US. The TSA or ICE may beg to differ, but I'd be willing to bet that we can find a whole lot of judges who disagree.

    9. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by Detritus · · Score: 1
      The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

      The Government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border. Time and again, we have stated that "searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border." United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977). Congress, since the beginning of our Government, "has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country." Montoya de Hernandez, supra, at 537 (citing Ramsey, supra, at 616--617 (citing Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, 1 Stat. 29)). The modern statute that authorized the search in this case, 46 Stat. 747, 19 U.S.C. 1581(a),1 derived from a statute passed by the First Congress, the Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, 31, 1 Stat. 164, see United States v. VillamonteMarquez, 462 U.S. 579, 584 (1983), and reflects the "impressive historical pedigree" of the Government's power and interest, id., at 585. It is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity.
      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    10. Re:guilty until proven otherwise by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The Government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border. Time and again, we have stated that "searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border." United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616 (1977). Congress, since the beginning of our Government, "has granted the Executive plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country." Montoya de Hernandez, supra, at 537 (citing Ramsey, supra, at 616--617 (citing Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, 1 Stat. 29)). The modern statute that authorized the search in this case, 46 Stat. 747, 19 U.S.C. 1581(a),1 derived from a statute passed by the First Congress, the Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, 31, 1 Stat. 164, see United States v. VillamonteMarquez, 462 U.S. 579, 584 (1983), and reflects the "impressive historical pedigree" of the Government's power and interest, id., at 585. It is axiomatic that the United States, as sovereign, has the inherent authority to protect, and a paramount interest in protecting, its territorial integrity.

      Stopping people from entering the country or bringing in contraband is one thing, but if you're on the US side of the border then you're already in the country, aren't you? And then those rules probably wouldn't apply. More importantly, many of the cases that I have heard about have involved people's laptops being searched or confiscated as they were leaving the country, not entering it.

  26. Shouldda Waited by cslax · · Score: 1

    She shouldda waited for that Supreme Court case that said divulging your password was a violation of your 5th amendment right.

    1. Re:Shouldda Waited by QCompson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She shouldda waited for that Supreme Court case that said divulging your password was a violation of your 5th amendment right. Don't get ahead of yourself. It was a federal magistrate in Vermont that gave that ruling, not the Supreme Court. We have no idea what the SCOTUS would do in such a situation... especially if it involves child pornography. They've been known to make exceptions to the Constitution when it comes to child pornography.
    2. Re:Shouldda Waited by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

      The person in the article is a british national. Do foreigners have any rights in the US?

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    3. Re:Shouldda Waited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been known to make exceptions to the Constitution when it comes to child pornography.


      So make sure you don't have any child pornography on your laptop.
    4. Re:Shouldda Waited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, when one is on US soil legally, he/she is protected by the US constitution in the same way as citizens. That's why the whole brouhaha about whether Gitmo is US soil.

    5. Re:Shouldda Waited by QCompson · · Score: 1

      So make sure you don't have any child pornography on your laptop. So in other words, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear?
    6. Re:Shouldda Waited by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      They've been known to make exceptions to the Constitution when it comes to child pornography.

      Which means that ... it's not really a Constitution any longer, is it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:Shouldda Waited by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't get ahead of yourself. It was a federal magistrate in Vermont that gave that ruling, not the Supreme Court. We have no idea what the SCOTUS would do in such a situation... especially if it involves child pornography. They've been known to make exceptions to the Constitution when it comes to child pornography. That case is rather wierd, but in the general case you don't know what's on the computer you request access to. It's one thing to say child pornography isn't protected under the first amendment, it's quite another to give police blanket permission to demand all your passwords because it might, without any form of suspicion, contain child pornography.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Shouldda Waited by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 2, Funny

      Terrorists are bringing kiddie porn to our borders? Those sonsabitches.

    9. Re:Shouldda Waited by QCompson · · Score: 1

      That case is rather wierd, but in the general case you don't know what's on the computer you request access to. It's one thing to say child pornography isn't protected under the first amendment, it's quite another to give police blanket permission to demand all your passwords because it might, without any form of suspicion, contain child pornography. Yet a similar scenario might come up quite a bit. The police suspect child pornography was sent/received by a particular IP address. They go to the house, seize all the computers, discover some encrypted drives and demand all the passwords.

      If the SCOTUS decides that it is not a violation of the 5th Amendment to force a child porn suspect to give up her passwords (or face severe criminal penalties), then everyone who doesn't give up their passwords, in any situation, will be immediately deemed highly suspicious, if not outright declared a child pornography/terrorism suspect.

      It's not a stretch to think this will happen in America. It has already happened in the UK.
    10. Re:Shouldda Waited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SCOTUS has a habit of making exceptions to the Constitution depending on the particular brand of orange juice they consume that morning.

    11. Re:Shouldda Waited by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Yes, when one is on US soil legally, he/she is protected by the US constitution in the same way as citizens.

      So what you are saying is "no, they have absolutely no rights, just like our citizens."
  27. ... and miss your plane. by krischik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While you are right doing so will take so long that you will miss your plane. In fact creating/using tight time contrainst is one of the three main ingredinence for any kind con jobs to cheat you out of your property.

    1. Re:... and miss your plane. by TuomasK · · Score: 1

      So what are the two other ingredients? :)

      --
      The truth or interpretation..
    2. Re:... and miss your plane. by mbone · · Score: 1

      Gee, then you miss your plane. I have missed many planes. It happens, even to the "get there 3 hours early" crowd. Unless it's Saigon, 1973, there will be another.

    3. Re:... and miss your plane. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      While you are right doing so will take so long that you will miss your plane.

      The solution to this is simple - check a bag. I'm pretty sure rules prevent a plane from departing carrying checked baggage for a no-show passenger.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:... and miss your plane. by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Greed and, oddly, chocolate.

    5. Re:... and miss your plane. by Fuji+Kitakyusho · · Score: 1

      When this happens they retrieve the no-show passenger's luggage from the aircraft and let it go.

    6. Re:... and miss your plane. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      Ya, but I was thinking that if you were only a little late due to TSA security, you may be able to beat the ejection of your baggage :-)

      You'll probably get kicked off, strip-searched and have your electronics stolen, excuse me, "confiscated for examination", either way because the airlines and government don't really care about anyone or anything anymore.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:... and miss your plane. by Qoroite · · Score: 1

      And, you think the solution won't be to remove your bags from the flight; if you're delaying the plane?

    8. Re:... and miss your plane. by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      Then check three pieces of baggage at three different check-in desks. Then they ahve to find all three needles in the haystack.

    9. Re:... and miss your plane. by krischik · · Score: 1

      They will have to drag you bag out of the hold - which they don't like at all. So, yes allways check in a bag ;-).

      Martin

    10. Re:... and miss your plane. by krischik · · Score: 1

      Greed and chocolate ;-) - Almost :-). Think of nigerian spam:

      2) offer huge payback (greed)
      3) ohh that poor old widdow - sniff (sweet story)

      Which of course means that that nigerian only offers two out of three - but to say it with meatloaf: Two out if three ain't bad.

      Martin

  28. No Holiday in the US for us. by krischik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well one more reason for me to remove the US off possible holiday destinations. Of course the poor guy was on a buisiness trip and had no choice.

    Martin

    1. Re:No Holiday in the US for us. by fx242 · · Score: 1

      This is getting really scary. I would show the guards the middle finger before giving away any of my private info, and demanded to talk immediately to his superior to protest. Inspecting my laptop without a judge order is a complete offense to privacy in any free country. TL

    2. Re:No Holiday in the US for us. by norite · · Score: 1

      We already decided this when they announced they would start photographing and fingerprinting everyone; we just won't go to the USA, we'll spend our tourist money elsewhere. Even flying to a third country on holiday (e.g. Peru) we just avoid the USA as a stop over altogether. A friend of ours went from London to Mexico via the USA to visit his girlfriend; he got stopped and interrogated in the USA even though a) he'd done nothing wrong and b) his final destination was a third country. He's vowed never to go the USA ever again. It's just too much hassle going to the USA these days. I just wonder if they know just how much damage they're doing to their tourist industry.....

      --
      -- Fuck Beta
    3. Re:No Holiday in the US for us. by zaax · · Score: 0

      after the agro of waiting four hours at Immigration going in and 1hour at security on the way out, and having heard the treatment of other travelers. I won't be going to the USA for a while, anyway Europe has nice places worth visiting.

    4. Re:No Holiday in the US for us. by The+Last+Dodo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would work. The guards would haul you away, cut off your middle finger, and then you'd be lucky to get out without a prison sentence. Remember boys and girls, freedom is slavery! Arbeit macht frei!

    5. Re:No Holiday in the US for us. by ipsi · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm not putting foot on US soil, probably ever, given the way things are currently going. Just... No. No way. Especially because buying a new laptop would be a significant expense... As would buying a new Treo, or whatever. Though the Treo isn't too bad, as you can just hard-reset it before giving it to them.

    6. Re:No Holiday in the US for us. by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Well one more reason for me to remove the US off possible holiday destinations. Of course the poor guy was on a buisiness trip and had no choice"

      Actually his choice (to deny the USA the benefits of his specialised knowledge) is quite interesting, and something I'm investigating for similar reasons.

    7. Re:No Holiday in the US for us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well one more reason for me to remove the US off possible holiday destinations. Of course the poor guy was on a buisiness trip and had no choice."

      Yes, it really does sound like the US is shooting itself in the foot, again.

      1.) Reduction in tourism (Nobody likes getting their expensive toys taken away)
      2.) Reduction in the US's status as a business hub. (Fewer businesses will be willing to fly to the US for meetings, etc)

  29. Does the EFF Have Statisitics? by pippadaisy · · Score: 1

    ... of, say, the rate that a cheapy 15" Toshiba back-to-school special vs. a pretty 17" MacBook running Leopard? I'm just wondering what sort of laptop the TSA is shopping for these days.

  30. Not checked baggage by localroger · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're strongly advised against that because you're also not allowed to lock your luggage any more, and the strong possibility of it getting stolen. Ship overnight insured, or just take your data on a key drive and use a computer that's already there when you land.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:Not checked baggage by eharvill · · Score: 1

      I figure that would be easier than shipping a laptop around the country to wherever you might be going. I travel on average about 6-8 times a year (for the last 5 years or so) and have never had anything taken from checked baggage. Anecdotal evidence for sure.

      I was coming back to the US from Spain last year and was bringing some wine back. They used to tell you to keep the bottles with you as a carry on and you'd get right through customs no questions asked (if under the limit, 3 bottles I think). This last trip I made, the Delta Rep told me it was better to pack it in my checked luggage as they would most likely stop me in customs if I was carrying it with me.

      Shipping a laptop overnight can be terribly expensive. In many cases you might need it the laptop the same day. Does Delta Dash or other services still exist? Seems kind of silly if it's on the same flight as the one you are taking. ;-) As other people have mentioned, it's not the value of the laptop itself, but really the data. I definitely agree with keeping important data on a usb stick/drive.

      I'm in a good situation where I do most of my work and keep all my documents in a VM. If I really had to, I could simply copy the VM to a usb stick/drive and never have to carry a laptop around. I would just have to make arrangements at each destination to have a system to use.

      --
      At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
    2. Re:Not checked baggage by dammy · · Score: 0

      Shipping a laptop overnight can be terribly expensive. Pfft! Ship a cheapo laptop to your destination a week in advance, just let the hotel know it's coming and keep it safe till your arrival. EEE PC being shipped via USPS Global Express Mail (~5 day option) and it's not that expensive. I mean, your company is paying for the trip, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what your costing them. Just tunnel back to your real system for the real sensitive information. That way there is no real sensitive data to be lost if the EEE PC is lost in transit.
    3. Re:Not checked baggage by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      You're strongly advised against that because you're also not allowed to lock your luggage any more, and the strong possibility of it getting stolen


      Not true. They advise not using locks, and warn that they will break them if necessary to search baggage.

      However, TSA's own website talks about TSA-approved locks which they have master keys to. Some even come with indicators that (supposedly) show if a master key was used instead of your own key/combination, since they can't be trusted to leave a Notice of Inspection like they're supposed to, that tells you your bag was opened and searched.

      I have these locks and had no problem flying to and from Orlando a few months ago.
    4. Re:Not checked baggage by sjames · · Score: 1

      And of course, billions in tax dollars can be freely spent frisking old ladies and otherwise annoying honest citizens, but not a penny to catch sticky fingered baggage handlers, one of the few real airport security problems.

    5. Re:Not checked baggage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can lock your baggage, but you need to use a "TSA approved lock" which is a lock that the TSA has master keys to. It may not be that effective if the thieves work for the TSA anyways, but it could keep out others just as well as a lock used to work.

      You can get them at any kind of outfitting/travel store.

  31. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Well, they free you from your laptop. Isn't that a way to increase your freedom?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  32. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Depends what the definition of "freedom" (nee is) is.

    Yes and Yes to your questions.

    It's caused by the mixing of functions of our government; legislative, executive, judicial. Used to be the police, at all levels, were executive. Judges disciplined them severely for dishonesty or even stupidity and incompetence. No more, police are now Officers of the Court, and judges close ranks behind their employees (see Terry Schiavo).

    TSA is just another police agency and the judge you appear before will defend ANYTHING they do.

    Yes, now we're just another banana republic, just look at the power of a Home Owners Association.

  33. TPM, Bitlocker and my middle finger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are three things I'll give the Government if they jack my notebook. =)

    1. Re:TPM, Bitlocker and my middle finger? by ashridah · · Score: 1

      Assuming you haven't been forced to give them your password on pain of anal probes and missed flights.

      TPM and Bitlocker won't help then.

      ash

  34. I don't travel myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but even so, I keep most of my important documents stored securely in various places online. True, there is always the possibility of my data being compromised, but that's why I also sign myself up regularly for various fraud-prevention programs, etc. I do this mainly to keep from losing vital data in the event of a disaster. Everyone knows we've been having a lot of them in the mid-west of late. I even work for a company that offers a hosted computing solutions for offices who don't want any of their data out in the wild--even in their own buildings. It's a good thing, really...and I'm certain it is the future.

    The only time I ever traveled by plane, I took NOTHING with me. NOTHING...well save for my ID and an American Express card. I didn't trust the folks at the airports then and this was pre-9-11. I figure wherever I travel (in other words where I would be willing to travel) there's going to be a Wal-Mart and financial facilities. If I need more clothes, go to Wal-Mart. Twenty to thirty bucks to buy an outfit most of the time. If I need money, I go to an ATM or bank.

    Today, many hotels out there have business centers and there are always public libraries or internet cafes. That should easily take care of most data needs. If not, someone already suggested Fed-Ex'ing your equipment ahead of yourself. Great idea.

    Obviously, we can't control our fascist, 1984-style government, but we can easily dodge some of their asshole tactics with a bit of pre-thinking.

    P.S. Why don't I carry cash on plane you ask? Because most money (unless it is brand new which would throw up red flags at the security checkpoint anyway) contains cocaine residue. Believe it or not, I swear the percentage is staggering. They have machines and dogs at most airports that can detect it easily, and then your ass is theirs, literally.

    1. Re:I don't travel myself... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      The only time I ever traveled by plane, I took NOTHING with me. NOTHING...well save for my ID and an American Express card.

      You traveled naked? :-)
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:I don't travel myself... by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      P.S. Why don't I carry cash on plane you ask? Because most money (unless it is brand new which would throw up red flags at the security checkpoint anyway)...

      WTF are you talking about? How would brand new US currency throw up red flags at an airport security checkpoint? Approximately 25% of the times that I withdraw money from an ATM, the bills dispensed by the ATM are brand new US currency. Is the TSA going to detain me for visiting my credit union's ATM the night before a trip?

    3. Re:I don't travel myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could have just robbed a bank or worse, you could be a counterfeiter. If you don't believe me check some of the recent homeland security news. It's happened before. And much like the laptop, you might just not get that money back if they decide to "investigate." You can't replace that. I can, however, replace my American Express card very easily. As for my ID (Driver's License), that's not too horrible to get a replacement copy of.

    4. Re:I don't travel myself... by gimpeh · · Score: 1

      You traveled naked? :-) It's possible.
      --
      Script kiddies ate my sig.
    5. Re:I don't travel myself... by CaroKann · · Score: 1

      It is a bad idea to travel with lots of cash, especially through any kind of checkpoint. While a small amount of cash, say from the ATM machine, won't draw any attention, thousands of dollars in cash will. They will assume you are into drug dealing, money laundering, or some other criminal activity. Plus, there is a good chance they will seize that cash, and if they do, you may not get it back. It has happened before.

    6. Re:I don't travel myself... by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      You could have just robbed a bank or worse, you could be a counterfeiter.

      Are you serious? People with brand new US twenty dollar bills in their wallets are now suspected of recently robbing a bank or being a counterfeiter? How do you think new bills get into circulation? The new bills are dispensed by banks, credit unions and their ATMs.

      I Am Not A Counterfeiter (no silly acronym needed today) but I have heard/read that counterfeiters use different techniques to "age" the brand new bills before the bills are used in public. Therefore it's quite unlikely that a counterfeiter would be carrying brand new currency in never-circulated condition in his billfold.

    7. Re:I don't travel myself... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

      So long as it's under $10,000 US you're ok. If it's over 10k, you just have to declare it - fill out a form stating what business you're in, why you're carrying so much cash/cheques/bearer bonds etc, and exactly what you plan on doing with it/them, where you will be staying, etc. Then you get asked a couple questions by the customs officer, and that's it.

      If you DON'T declare it and they find out, then kiss it goodbye. You broke the law, so they take the money.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:I don't travel myself... by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      t is a bad idea to travel with lots of cash, especially through any kind of checkpoint. While a small amount of cash, say from the ATM machine, won't draw any attention, thousands of dollars in cash will. They will assume you are into drug dealing, money laundering, or some other criminal activity. Plus, there is a good chance they will seize that cash, and if they do, you may not get it back. It has happened before.

      Do you have a reputable source for these claims (such as working for the TSA or law enforcement) or are you just making this shit up? What about people who are flying to Vegas or Atlantic city for a little "recreation"? What about someone who is flying to a another city to purchase a vehicle they found via eBay? Are those people classified as "drug dealers or money launderers"? I'm sure there are plenty of other good reasons for people to have a pretty good handful of cash in their pocket when they are travelling; those were the first two that popped into my head.

    9. Re:I don't travel myself... by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

      You traveled naked? :-)
      Ugh, I don't even want to think about where he keeps his American Express card.
  35. Sounds like her company did the right thing by Dielectric · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the article, it says that Radius went to an encrypted network to access company data. Given the recent news of stolen laptops, and the ensuing uproar over the data contained on them, it seems to me that everyone should take this approach. There are very few places that I go in the course of business that don't have some kind of network access. Even the hot dog stand down the street has free wifi, for crying out loud! Of course, you need an access scheme sufficient to keep thieves and DHS agents out of your database, but that's a solved problem with revocable certs, etc.

    The note about going through the recent documents log and browser history has me concerned, though. I may set the defaults on my work machine to never-save on the history. I can think of any number of services to archive bookmarks online. The idea here is that your travel machine may be lost, stolen, broken, or compromised at any time, and we should behave as such.

    It sucks that we have to protect ourselves from unreasonable search and seizure by our government, but we'll just have to deal with it for now. Not to get off on a rant here, but I think the Second Amendment should be interpreted to include strong encryption. The writers of the Constitution put that in there as a safeguard against jackbooted government thugs. In today's world, I see no political difference between a Kentucky Long Rifle and AES-128.

    1. Re:Sounds like her company did the right thing by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 1

      Strong encryption for guns? or the well regulated militia? You did say Second Amendment after all...

      --
      Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    2. Re:Sounds like her company did the right thing by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Strong encryption is classified as a weapon. That's why, for example, South Korean online banking is dependant on ActiveX - because the USA only allowed the export of SSL technology that was limited to 40-bit keys South Korean banks rolled their own encryption format called SEED, which was usually implemented in ActiveX. Since the entire market uses ActiveX-SEED virtually every customer has Internet Explorer, thus there is no need to deploy a non-ActiveX version of SEED etc. etc.

      If the USA considers strong encryption to be a weapon for purposes of export, they should consider it a weapon for purposes of the Second Amendment.


      OTOH, there are laws stating that the Second Amendment doesn't cover certain kinds of weapon (like everything with a clip size > 10), so they might classify encryption as a weapon, then classify everything past 128-bit keylength as "military encryption technology" and randomly bust people who don't want the DHS to access their banking details. The "antiterrism" lobby certainly isn't above such scumbaggery.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:Sounds like her company did the right thing by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      It isn't mentioned, but the company should have probably posted some information on its website or sent a notice to its customers that the laptop had been taken. How is this situation any different from a hacker gaining access to one of their servers and downloading client data? Their customers have a right to know that the laptop has been compromised.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Sounds like her company did the right thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither does the US since they classify certain levels of encryption as Munitions.

    5. Re:Sounds like her company did the right thing by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

      > keep thieves and DHS agents out of your database,

      Isn't that redundant?

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    6. Re:Sounds like her company did the right thing by andy_t_roo · · Score: 1

      just a generalization and an emphasis on a qualified subset (assuming that all DHS agents are thieves). On the other hand if they regularly acted as thieves there could be minor legal problems, so the assumption that all DHS agents always act as thieves is most probably false, hence the need for both to be listed.

  36. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by uffe_nordholm · · Score: 1

    I fear you have misphrased your question. From Europe, where I live, it appears that the USA is getting more and more like a banana republic every day. Previously I would have considered 'USA' and 'banana republic' to be mutually exclusive, but I have had to change that opinion.

  37. Better to store data encrypted on intnl website by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    In a situation like this, it is best to remember that the laptop is just a tool for accessing the data, and not primarily a storage for data.

        It would be a better alternative to have the data stored on an internationally accessible website in an encrypted format. Then when you need to work, get a laptop or an internet cafe where you can run your own programs. Download the encryption program from the website. Download your data. Work it and when finished, re-encrypt the new data and upload it to the website.

        Yes, I know, all websites are international, ect.... But this isn't college. You want to use a website that isn't going to draw the attention of the people who are monitoring your internet session. Yes, you say that I'm being paranoid. Shit, grow up, places like Singapore, China, and Malaysia, and many others, exist where people just like you are going to be monitored. Learn to live with it.

        And learn how to get work done discretely, effectively, and privately while being monitored by paranoid, mentally-defective assholes who have the authority to do any fucking thing that they want, and not a clue of what to do. (like Americans in uniforms).

  38. secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  39. don't hand over the laptop - just the HDD by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    The police don't care about the keyboard, screen or memory - they are only concerned with the data on the disk. If I was given the option of handing over a $1000 laptop or a $100 disk, I'd be prepared to pop the drive and hand it to them.

    I wouldn't expect the police to be capable enough or organised enough to ever retun it though. So they'd get one of my old 2GB or 6Gb disks while the "business" data is shipped separately as others have suggested or carried in hold luggage, with lots of bubblewrap around it.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  40. not the answer by tacokill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The answer, of course, is to rely on your employer. Let me explain.

    Go ahead and fight them. I mean - do not let them search your laptop until forced to do so. Cite your company's information as the reason. Perhaps individual privacy is gone but we still have some sanctity for corporate data. It doesn't even have to be trademark/copyright/legally protected data. It just has to be data that your company deems 'private and confidential'. If people start missing flights because of over-ambitious TSA agents, eventually, businesses will start screaming about these searches....if they aren't already. Not only are they overly intrusive but they are causing losses in a very real way. Measurable losses.

    Anyone from Oracle or MSFT read this post? How would you feel about your laptop being held like this? How about someone from Adobe or Boeing? What about the big-3 car companies? Consulting companies?

    There are lots of businesses that require international travel and I am betting they don't want some $10.50/hr TSA employee reading your laptop anymore than you do. I expect employers to enter the fray any second now. They will not stand for this unless there are some checks and balances. They have no interest in writing off confiscated assets because of over zealous TSA agents and they are (unfortunately) our best defense.

    1. Re:not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone from Oracle or MSFT read this post? How would you feel about your laptop being held like this? How about someone from Adobe or Boeing? What about the big-3 car companies? Consulting companies?

      Where do you think the data stolen by the TSA ends up? It's being used by these companies to out compete you foreigners! Any of my employees would be fired for turning over their data.

    2. Re:not the answer by solafide · · Score: 1

      I wonder if I could cite classified information being on the laptop as a reason not to turn it over, if I worked for, say Boeing, and truly did?

    3. Re:not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Handing over classified material to someone without a verifiable need-to-know is illegal. Do not do that. If you are forced to do that, you need to contact your facility security officer, or DSS, or at least the FBI, ASAP, to report the crime, so it can be pushed to appropriate handling as soon as possible.

    4. Re:not the answer by masdog · · Score: 1

      Or if you didn't work for Boeing or some other defense contractor, you could bluff your way out of it by taking your cell phone and pretending to call a General. If they call your bluff, your screwed, but how many rent-a-TSA-cops will actually call that bluff if they're worried about some high ranking officer coming down on them?

    5. Re:not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about companies from other countries? It's well known that US is among the worst economical spyer in the world and handing over the company data to some US agent will not be seen as a good business practice... soon traveling to the US will be forbiden by company policy to avoid data leakage. But who cares China is the tomorrow first economical power ;-)

    6. Re:not the answer by bug · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately, my employer has made it clear that they want their employees to cooperate fully with these searches, and afterwards tell corporate security. Realistically, it's the only reasonable thing for the company to expect. For one, no company wants to be labeled as "supporting the terrists!" Heck, it could even hurt their ability to win government contracts. For another, TSA is unlikely to back down just because of some corporate security policy. The employee would find themselves unable to board their flight at best (and thus unable to complete whatever task the company assigned to them), and arrested and possibly charged with some absurd federal crime at worst. The business travelers have the most to lose if they refuse to comply.

      One poster suggested that government contractors refuse to cooperate, and call their corporate security officer and/or DSS. That's an interesting idea, but someone undergoing a TSA or Customs search won't have any opportunity to contact their security office during the search. They're not going to let you make a cellphone call. You either consent to the search, or you don't. If you don't consent, they might take it anyway, and I'll bet money you wind up in handcuffs.

    7. Re:not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be ridiculous if corporations had more rights to maintain their privacy against government than citizens.
      If this happens, all citizens should start to declare themselves as corporations.

    8. Re:not the answer by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      my employer has made it clear that they want their employees to cooperate fully with these searches, and afterwards tell corporate security. Realistically, it's the only reasonable thing for the company to expect.

      Is this explained to your clients in your companies privacy policy? I'm rather interested in knowing what my credit card companies policy is regarding data safety. Unfortunately, that part of the web site doesn't work. Some of the information being seized may be my information, even though I am not the one traveling. Do I have legal recourse if my information is copied from the laptop of a company I do business with?

      --
      We are all just people.
    9. Re:not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be a little pedantic but its worth noting that snot nosed TSA agents can NOT search your computer. They are concerned only with flight saftey and making sure your computer is not in fact a bomb. The limit of their data inspection authority is turning it on to make sure it boots.

      Its the customs agents with unchecked authority to have their way with your tech we all need to be really worried about :(

    10. Re:not the answer by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Go ahead and fight them. I mean - do not let them search your laptop until forced to do so.



      Uhhh. Bad idea. Really bad idea. They can't detain/cavity search/deny entry to/arrest/disappear a company, but they can do any of that to you.



      Not only are they overly intrusive but they are causing losses in a very real way. Measurable losses.



      Yes, and especially if it's not a company, these "losses" are quite desired and expected. Corporate espionage, anyone ?

    11. Re:not the answer by Nightwraith · · Score: 1

      Respond this these requests as if you were being asked to let them search your car or person.

      Remember: if you are ASKED to allow the search, you have no recourse what-so-ever should you GIVE PERMISSON OR CONSENT. Just as you should never consent to a search of your automobile or home, DO NOT CONSENT to any search or confiscation of property.

      In most jobs, you probably also signed a non-discolsure agreement when you started your employment. Presenting ANY information related to your work could be seen as a violation of this legally binding agreement. I'm sure that something such as a password, or worse the confidential client/company documents protected by that password, would most certianly violate that agreement.

      Just as with any other Law Enforcement Officer (LEO), which the TSA or Customs Agent may or may not qualify as, you have the RIGHT to refuse to answer ANY questions at ANY TIME. Your other option may not be particularly attractive (missing the flight, brief confinement), but it only takes 1 little bit of 'evidence' taken out of context to incriminate and possibly incarcerate you for a very long time.

      The instant that you are threatened with loss of life, liberty ("You can't take this, or any other flight. You're coming with us.") or property ("Give us your computer/password/secrets.") without due process you should refuse, clearly state that you are being coerced and request a lawyer.

      In many portions of this country, a person would be killed and often legally for simply providing a convincing threat of such actions (removal of life/liberty/property).

    12. Re:not the answer by mea2214 · · Score: 1

      I had to reply to this and all comments that blame the TSA for doing these searches. According to all the articles I've read on this subject, the culprit is US Customs -- not the TSA. The TSA has a blog entry up that explains that they do not search laptops or phones. See: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/

    13. Re:not the answer by ancientt · · Score: 1

      I had a PGP encrypted system (whole disk encryption) and I talked over this scenario with our IT Security coordinator. I suggested that he set the password before my departure, and not tell it to me, and provide it to a trusted third party at the destination. Should I have been asked, I could have said that I did not have the ability to access the data due to its sensitive nature. They could have confiscated the laptop, but they could not have made me reveal sensitive customer information. This should be standard practice.

      This type of precaution is absolutely reasonable because anyone could accost me and make demands that I divulge company sensitive information, not just the "good guys" and it puts the onus of providing cooperation with authorities back with the corporation that can afford the lawyers to fight it. It allows the traveler to comply fully to the best of their ability, but prevents sensitive data loss without the cooperation of IT Security, which can fall back on "I've requested authorization from our legal department."

      As is probably noted elsewhere, TrueCrypt now offers whole disk encryption, a viable free alternative. Also note that having a live CD with the ability to establish VPN for remote access to corporate secured desktops provides the capability to do any work that might come up during travel.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
  41. The weak dollar *had* made it attractive... by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    With the exchange rate, I can understand why tourists would want to visit New York, etc...

    With the inhumane and degrading treatment they must endure, I can understand why they wouldn't.

    Won't *someone* think of the Tour Operators????

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  42. Corporate Data and Spying by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Who is to say what they do with the data once copied on the computer. European countries are already paranoid that the USA is snooping their companies to hand over data to US firms. I doubt this will do anything to reassure them.

    Truth is, this is likely to encourage companies to a: use a securId on their computers or b: not to put corporate data on the computer and make it only accessible via a corporate VPN. Also, this is likely to make Toronto and Vancouver more popular as hubs for people not stopping in the USA. I know a fair amount of Canadians who would pay a bit extra just to avoid having to transit through the states because of the "warm welcome" of DHS. Nothing is worse that having to go though immigrations twice when flying to Canada (once in the USA and once in Canada).

    Between the war in Iraq, the alienating of our allies and discouraging people flying through the USA, unless as a final destination, I can't say our government is helping our country's economy one bit.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Corporate Data and Spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European countries are already paranoid that the USA is snooping their companies to hand over data to US firms.

      Of course they're worried about this. They're worried about it for the very simple reason that their governments are doing the exact same thing.

      One is always concerned with protecting one's secrets. One is doubly concerned with protecting one's secrets when one's secrets are themselves stolen.

      Put simply, having your secrets stolen is bad. Having your stolen secrets stolen is doubly bad because if they were stolen from you by those you stole them from in the first place they're going to be very upset with you.
    2. Re:Corporate Data and Spying by TarPitt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Truth is, this is likely to encourage companies to a: use a securId on their computers or b: not to put corporate data on the computer and make it only accessible via a corporate VPN.

      They've already got that one covered:

      In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.


      http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70908

      I think it is reasonable to assume most commercially available VPN-based encryption (as well as TLS/SSL) can be broken by the NSA. Even if this is not the case, traffic analysis based on unencrypted headers can reveal a lot about what is being communicated to whom.

      If I were just a bit more paranoid, I'd say the point of laptop confiscation is to force commercial entities to use easily broken commercial crypto over communications lines that are already heavily wiretapped.
      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  43. Need some export controls here by EdIII · · Score: 2, Funny

    The US has always seemed to be in the business of exporting freedom to other countries. Apparently we are exporting too much of it, especially since 2001. Maybe we need to create some more locally?

  44. Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by Shohat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nowadays, people who could have made a real change by marching in the streets, burning tires and protesting these horrible things, simply type away furiously, and think that someone cares.
    The Internet is a microscopic, meaningless medium for message delivery, and nothing proves it better than Ron Paul. You want to make a change? Stop blogging, making videos and writing articles, and start fighting with legislation, with money, with burning tires and real 100,000 people marches. The Internet created this idiotic illusion that a bunch of people supporting each other can make a difference. Well here's your fucking wake-up call. Reality has not changed.
    I am not from the US, and what's "worse" I am from Israel, but it saddens me to see your nation giving up so many values that has made it great.
    AND IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING.

    1. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by simong · · Score: 1

      'Stop blogging, making videos and writing articles, and start fighting with legislation, with money, with burning tires and real 100,000 people marches'

      'My Starcraft 2 blog [sc2blog.com] '

      Gotta love it.

    2. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about snipers, suicide bombers and homemade rockets? Think those might help promote change Shohat?

      (yes, yes, a low blow I know, but you were asking for it)

    3. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by sjwest · · Score: 1

      I am not american either, but in western europe (thats where the french live) several million people walked to stop the second iraq invasion. Alas since neither Tony Blair or George W Bush was with them in the march they where ALL ignored.

      So we did protest and we where ignored. Since most of the world now thinks Georges little oil grab (or put the oil price up scam) was not the best idea now even in hindsight, how would you suggest we protest?

      The only englishman allowed to protest near Parliament in London is called Brian Haw, the government are soon to deny him that right to protest there and two people can constitute a public order offense and be sent to the us bit of Cuba.

      Your suggestions are most welcome.

    4. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your suggestions are most welcome. start killing men in suits. i'm serious. the fact of the matter is, there are more actual living-breathing human beings then there are government goons.. no matter what country you are in, no matter what a bloated out-of-control military spending budget can buy, you are still a member of a majority.

      remember vietnam? the lesson learned about never being able to win against a determined local populace in their own backyard? well the western governments have apparently missed that lesson, and the US in particular has spread their resources so thin that not only are they assured to lose both the war in iraq and afghanistan, but they are incapable of even protecting their own borders in the event of an invasion.. well my friend, if you happen to live within those borders, and if you happen to be determined to keep your freedom and dedicated to the ideals that our forefathers put forth in the declaration of independence, constitution, and bill of rights, i suggest you secure a firearm, dig in, and firmly state your intentions to keep your freedom.

      the US government has 10x more guns than it has men.. and the men they do have are your brothers, neighbors, cousins, and sons.. the will of the people can not be ignored by any government. there was once a time in antiquity when the roman army had to dispatch large squads of men to protect the tax man.. why? because when he came knocking on the peasant's door he was never seen again. the US has put itself in a situation where there is not enough soldiers to protect the other soldiers, let alone the tax man. murder the fucking tax man, and send a message that we, the people, are the source of a government's strength, and we are revoking their "divine right" to represent us.
    5. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is that 'freedom' has become a tool of subjugation. People pursuing their dreams have amassed their collection of toys. These do not wish to lose their toys and so they shut up and behave.

    6. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING.

      FUCK YOU. I DID march, and vote, and do all the shit that supposedly leads to real change. It didn't help, we were a "focus group" and got 2 minutes on TV and then the pro-war counter-protest (that had 1/100 as many people as the anti-war protest) side got 10 minutes.

      You want to change America? Stop buying our shit for one. Or even better, how about trying to get Israel to stop using America's military hardware to kill the Palestinians? 9/11 wouldn't have even happened if you Israeli's weren't constantly killing Arabs in your own Holocaust re-enactment for the last 50 fucking years.

    7. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by xPsi · · Score: 1

      Point well taken, but you must realize the irony of posting your message on blog. True, money and legislation do talk. But, sadly, marches, protests, and tire-burning serve the same function you claim the internet serves: is makes people feel like they are making a difference when they really aren't. It is rare such things bring about meaningful change. Classic example: the Vietnam War, famous for its ability to incite healthy civil disobedience in the US, went on 4 more years after the major protests fizzled. Protest and marches usually have the effect of polarizing and hardening existing official positions, not promoting change. I still think people should participate in civil disobedience (but not burn tires), not because it is effective but because it provides a sense of self-satisfaction. Nevertheless, real social change doesn't require it and protest still needs to be coupled to legislation, power, and money to actually work.

      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
    8. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the tires want is to disrupt our lives, and cause fear. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. We have already lost the "war."

    9. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by sjames · · Score: 1

      There were protest marches in the U.S. as well (I witnessed one personally), but they didn't get on the news.

    10. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Nowadays, people who could have made a real change by marching in the streets, burning tires and protesting these horrible things, simply type away furiously, and think that someone cares

      And burning tires does what? Smokes up the neighborhood? Messes with the environment? Pisses off the local cops who have to deal with it? What do you do after you burn a bunch of tires? Break out a few windows, flip over a car? Set off a bomb?

      Great plan. Maybe random violence will convince people to do what you want. Maybe the government will be so impressed that they'll give you a medal for setting things on fire.

    11. Re:Bloggers and YouTube killed your great nation by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Israel?

      Jeezus Keyrist.

      Pot, why don't you come meet my good friend Kettle over here.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  45. Welcome to the Union of Soviet Sates of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "grab first, explain never" power game is really nothing new. The communists of the Eastern Block used to do that to everyone who crossed the border. It was just a way of showing everybody that not only the border agents can break the law at will, but they will do it in your face just to show you that they can screw up your trip and you are powerless. Completely at their mercy. Most of the items "seized" at border crossings became personal property of the agents, as it was most probably the case with the laptop discussed in this article. It was revealed at some point that border agents sometimes did not pick up their paychecks for months, they made a lot more money from selling "seized" items.

    This is nothing more that one of the first power games that a police state plays on law-abiding citizens.

    When a military-minded government has no enemy to fight, the very citizens it governs become the enemy.

  46. Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The screeners at Dulles are the rudest I've encountered anywhere. It's like they're pissed off about life. By contrast, the screeners at BWI up the road are fine.

    At the Dulles airport, they make crap up and just hassle you because they can. You feel like you're in East Germany in 1961.

    But what can you do?

    The unfortunately part is Dulles in the 60's and 70's was always a joy to fly in and out of. As recently as the late 90's I used to take my kids there to watch the planes take off and land. It was a fun way to kill a sunday afternoon.

    Now of course, Airports are beyond miserable.

    1. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Raven42rac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're just human cattle to them. If someone really wanted to do something, he/she could just blow up the hundreds of people waiting at the bottleneck BEFORE security screening.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    2. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is the problem with the assumption that there are terrorists just waiting to get on airliners -- why not go for easier and more effective targets? If you want to hurt air travel, blow up the checkpoints. Or better yet, do what they do in Israel and hit grocery stores. This maniacal focus on securing air travel just doesn't make any sense.

      --
      Visit the
    3. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Raven42rac · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They're trying to prevent something that's already happened.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    4. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're just human cattle to them.
      If someone really wanted to do something, he/she could just blow up the hundreds of people waiting at the bottleneck BEFORE security screening. I guess one could make a trigger mechanism that would be set off by the metal detector itself... dammit, now I'm thinking like an engineer/terrorist!
      --

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

    5. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by TClevenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup. Part of the construction at one airport a couple of years ago (I think Oakland) put a couple of hundred people waiting at the baggage claim in a relatively small room with a hundred people waiting to get through security. I told my wife, "If these people are smart, they won't bother with the planes; there's a 747-load right here."

    6. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by @madeus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At the Dulles airport, they make crap up and just hassle you because they can. You feel like you're in East Germany in 1961.

      But what can you do? ...

      Now of course, Airports are beyond miserable. Amen to that.

      FWIW, this is why I won't be going back to the US any time soon (although I've been there several times in the past, and to Canada). I really like the US, I like the people and the country. Americans are some of the warmest most friendly and helpful people anywhere in the world. I have relatives there and I could quite happily spend my holidays there every year, one state at a time.

      The US tourist board run adverts on TV telling us to come visit at DiscoverAmerica.com, which - given the way they treat you when you do get there, post 9/11 - is entirely a mixed message it seems to me. Trips there are nothing but a hassle with endless queuing and stupid security checks. I've had on multiple trips and the absolutely insane delays and had to deal with concentration-camp guards that pass for Airport security staff that ask you stupid pointless questions and what you do for a living.

      For example, on our last trip (which I didn't want to go on, but a relative had just died, and there was a service):

      We didn't have all the technical details of where we were staying at every point in our trip - we didn't need them - but they detained us because we didn't have them. They then directed us to a computer and let us *Google for them*. We filled out the details and they let us on our way. I have no idea what the point in that was. I could have named any hotel chain in a nearby city and said "oh yeah, that one", it's not like they called to check.

      You certainly can't expect to turn up and just "take each day as it comes" as they expect you to say exactly where you will be and where you are staying. Personally I like to be spontaneous and free wheeling while I'm on holiday - especially when I'm visiting somewhere like the US where there is so much to see. On the last two trips I did multiple flights internally too, that was also an unbelievable hassle. Even the major airports are not designed to have large queues like there are now - clearly waiting areas and shopping areas have been altered to turn them into giant queuing zones.

      Of course there are queues at UK airports and some silly rules (e.g. flying from Heathrow to a domestic airport requires you take off your shoes, but fly back to Heathrow from a domestic airport and you don't have to) but the delays don't seem any worse than pre 9/11, especially now that new faster facilities are available. The security staff are by and large pretty chilled out. I've heard of some abuses by immigration officials specifically (who seem to be hired primarily on the basis of how much they hate foreigners), but I've also seen them shrug off abuse and being ranted at at by drunk passengers late for a flight for having to wait all of 10 minutes to go through security (from guys who were quite obviously in the bar when they should have been checking in).

      I'm looking forward to a future administration sorting this mess out and restoring some semblance of normality, I just hope that happens sooner rather than later. I know the US economy is a behemoth but the current regime has got to be hurting trade and tourism and impacting on the bottom line (I'm sure it's denting consumer confidence too, and so helping to depress the domestic market).
    7. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by ultranova · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I guess one could make a trigger mechanism that would be set off by the metal detector itself... dammit, now I'm thinking like an engineer/terrorist!

      Or you could just go to a phone booth, call the airport, say that you've planted bombs in the airport, hang up and walk away. Your friends could help by firing firecrackers close by.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by symbolic · · Score: 1

      They were trying to prevent 9/11 before it happened. Or were they...

    9. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're relatively alone at the metal detector though. The line is a much better place.

    10. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucky the security guys didn't hear you, or you'd have your very own room down at Gitmo...

    11. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It only doesn't make sense if you presume their actual goals are aligned with their stated goals. If the goals are to induce relatively powerful people to feel helpless and threatened, it makes a lot more sense.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are trying to prevent United Airlines from being incompetent? If any of their employees had asked just one of the guys why he was carrying a knife, he might have started sweating the question enough to raise a flag or two.

      Remember he 9/11 guys all went through security run by United Airlines the next time you choose to buy a plane ticket.

    13. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      hang up and walk away.
      You should STAY in the phone booth, otherwise some crazy dude is going to try to use it as a changing room, and then he'll mess up the whole plan. I've seen it happen.
    14. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by FLEB · · Score: 1

      With a full plane, though, you have the advantage of it being ready transportation or a missile in and of it self (depending on what era of hijacking you're into). Take down a plane, and you can wipe out quite a bit on the ground... at least make a good picture for the news media... or you can get the money wired to you and jet off to some sympathetic nation.

      Of course, this is assuming everyone else on the plane doesn't go group-beatdown on you the moment you start shouting-- this is a dangerous new world we live in, you know.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    15. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Remember he 9/11 guys all went through security run by United Airlines the next time you choose to buy a plane ticket.

      Security was being run by an airline? Really?

      If true - that's the stupidist thing I've ever heard. Security should be independant of the airlines. It is here in Canada at least.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    16. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by syousef · · Score: 1

      You've lost the plot. A nut job that's about to blow himself and other STRANGERS up on an airplane because he believes his cause is just and that he's going straight to heaven just isn't going to be sweating lying about carrying a knife.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    17. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by gronofer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yup. Part of the construction at one airport a couple of years ago (I think Oakland) put a couple of hundred people waiting at the baggage claim in a relatively small room with a hundred people waiting to get through security. I told my wife, "If these people are smart, they won't bother with the planes; there's a 747-load right here."
      Sure, but that wouldn't hurt the capitalist system where it really counts: the cost of replacing an airliner.
    18. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Zemran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      20 years ago, I was traveling up through Sweden to Finland. I thought that it would be fun to do the return trip down the Russian side as there are a lot of places in the east that I wanted to visit. The paperwork was a nightmare and I decided against it. I have been wandering around the US and had a great time just going where I wanted. That is the sort of thing that I wanted to do in Russia, if I liked St Petersburg, stay a couple of weeks, if I didn't, move on...

      A couple of years ago I dropped into Moscow and traveled up north. I am now allowed to travel around in a way that I am no longer allowed to travel around the US. Some irony there.

      Land of the free? Who are you trying to fool?

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    19. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If any of their employees had asked just one of the guys why he was carrying a knife, he might have started sweating the question enough to raise a flag or two.

      Ah, but then we'd be "profiling" Islamic-Americans and the ACLU would be having fits. Instead we just make everyones life miserable, including such threats to liberty as disabled WW2 vets in wheelchairs and six month old babies (Could you take your child's shoes off, please?)

      I'm as much of a Liberal as anybody but I think we could learn a few things from the Israeli's here. Ask them how many hijackings they've had in the last decade. And they've never asked me to take my shoes off.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      A couple of years ago I dropped into Moscow and traveled up north. I am now allowed to travel around in a way that I am no longer allowed to travel around the US. Some irony there.

      Um, with respect, maybe you meant to say that it's easier to get INTO Russia now then it is to get INTO the United States? Once you are actually inside of the United States, where did you have problems "traveling around"? There's no restrictions on internal movement in this country. Airports have become a pain in the ass but that ends after the TSA security line.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      "This bomb mechanism brought to you by Achmed, The Ironic Terrorist."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    22. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Security was being run by an airline? Really?

      YA RLY. El Al is fanatical about security, for fairly obvious reasons. They make the posers at TSA look like posers.

      Even in Canada. Oh, sure, you have your own "independent" security. But El Al security is running the show inside their gate areas and on their planes, no fear.

      Experience keeps a costly school, but Israel's national airline has definitely learned the lessons there.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    23. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are checkpoints inside the US. They stop and question every car on the interstate near El Paso, for example. At least the one time I drove by they did.

    24. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      If an airline for whatever reason wants to impose extra security AFTER the airport security, then that's their perrogative. However an airline should not be able to REPLACE an independant security group.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    25. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by kelnos · · Score: 1

      Probably a speed trap, or some retarded anti-illegal-immigrant thing. That's certainly not a common practice in the US.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    26. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      It is if you're travelling by bus and are close to (and by that I mean 300 miles or so) to the Mexican border. Lots and lots of "ID please" requests by "border patrol." And now try that if you're from a small EU country that most policemen in the US haven't ever heard of.

    27. Re:Well, we put the miserable screeners at Dulles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The authorities -- to the extent that they care about The People at all -- may believe that the issue is not the air travellers (who assume some risk after all, just in driving to the airport) but people who are on the ground. The use of fuel-laden passenger jets as size-large car bombs is the principal in-flight risk to non-passengers on the ground. Trading away some discomfort (or even the avoidable deaths) suffered by a hundred or more passengers at a checkpoint or even in the air may be worth a larger number of deaths of people who aren't passengers, or even near normal flight paths.

  47. Discussion of relevant precedent by theophilosophilus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Heres a good article from the IEEE Computer Society entitled "Setting Boundaries at Borders: Reconciling Laptop Searches and Privacy." The article discusses United States v. Arnold Federal and other precedent. Arnold, a federal district court opinion on a motion to suppress evidence, appears to have come out the right way. To add my own 2 cents, why would the fear of contraband be more intense at the border when the speed of information transfer on the internet has made such concerns all but irrelevant?

    --
    Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    1. Re:Discussion of relevant precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To add my own 2 cents, why would the fear of contraband be more intense at the border when the speed of information transfer on the internet has made such concerns all but irrelevant? The only explanation I can think of is that they're searching for child pornography. They're hoping for easy arrests, and of course inconveniencing thousands of travelers for the sake of arresting someone with pictures is completely worth it. All other freedoms and rights are apparently inconsequential when it comes to the "war" on child pornography.

      The arrests documented so far due to electronic border searches all involve child pornography (AFAIK). As in the recent Vermont case, border agents seem to be looking at laptops and doing searches for *.jpg, *.avi, etc.
    2. Re:Discussion of relevant precedent by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?

      The backhoe is a one-time investment, some maintenance aside. People, on the other hand, can only be rented, not bought.

    3. Re:Discussion of relevant precedent by stm2 · · Score: 1

      "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes"

      --
      DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
    4. Re:Discussion of relevant precedent by WolfTheWerewolf · · Score: 1

      "...why would the fear of contraband be more intense at the border..."

      Because this is one of the only places where they have easy access to your person and you're in a position which makes it difficult to resist. Easy targets.

  48. You're mistaken. by raehl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't burn tires because burning tires, by itself, does anything. The government doesn't care how many tires you burn. They just shoot you with rubber bullets (or real bullets, or fire hoses) and move on.

    You burn tires because when you burn tires and the government shoots you, you get in the newspaper, and the article talks about what act of the government you found so egregious that you picked a sure-to-lose fight with its better-armed agents.

    There's a reason we don't use fire hoses anymore - and it's not because (directly) it's inhumane. We don't do it because it generates too much press.

    The internet lets you have the same effect as burning tires without having to get shot first. The real media is lazy. They don't want to have to go down to the National Mall every time somebody burns a tire any more than you really want to go down there and burn tires. They would much prefer to sit in their comfy office, read blogs, and report on what people are blogging about. You can get the same press with blogging nowadays as you can get with tire burning.

    1. Re:You're mistaken. by crossmr · · Score: 1

      I can see how tear gas and tasering generates less press..

    2. Re:You're mistaken. by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Very true.... but we've still got the problem with the "mass media" only SELECTIVELY embracing "Internet/new media".

      Sure, they're happy to read the blogs and regurgitate information gleaned from them, when it suits their agenda and provides a likely boost to their ratings.

      But don't forget, the Internet is slowly *killing* most traditional media. The newspaper subscriptions are in decline, and even classified advertising money that once went to them is largely gone, with the advent of sites like Craigslist and eBay.

      Television is being viewed fewer number of hours per week by the typical American, with that "missing time" largely being reported as being used for "web surfing and email" instead.

      So the "Internet-culture" is not so much the friend or ally of mass media. It's really more of their enemy. They're not so much opposed to the *technology* itself as the "culture" developing around it. Ideally, they'd probably love the net to be just as widespread as it is. (As you pointed out, it makes their reporting jobs easier - and surely cuts expenses in numerous ways for them.) They just don't care for the "Internet evangelists", making it "cool and trendy" to do everything online instead of absorbing "old school, passive forms of media" like they pedal to the public. Now, tell me again exactly which segment it was primarily supporting Ron Paul??

  49. Report to FSO and DSS, so it can go to FBI & M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Insist on clearing it with your FSO -- facility security officer. Call your facility security officer, and say that a TSA employee is asking for access to your laptop, and that you have no evidence of their 'need to know' to access your non-classified but limited distribution military project data. That way you have started the paper trail to be reported to DSS, at least. When you return, remember to ask your FSO if they need anything from you for a report to DSS. Hopefully you can push the whole problem to DSS, where it belongs -- they should handle unauthorized access to military data, especially if done under threat of force. They can report it to FBI and relevant military intelligence.

  50. It's their fault for being Muslim by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    One could argue that traveling to the United States while being Muslim/Arabic does count as self-inflicted harm. I'm reminded of the movie Don't Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice In The Hood* where the protagonists are arrested for being black on a Wednesday. Being possibly Muslim while crossing the US border is not desired. Of course, not being an Islam suspect still doesn't keep you from getting the full criminal treatment with mugshot and fingerprint. Y'know, because everyone abroad is an evil Commie Nazi terrorist hell-bent on committing crime in the USA.

    Let's face it, foreigners aren't particularly welcome in the States, especially when they don't look Christian. At least as far as the borders are concerned. Once you're in people suddenly revert back to the friendly, extroverted, slightly obtrusive Americans everyone knows. When you try to leave the country, however, it's back to hoping you make it past the scary, armed, people-abducting special police.

    It really ruins the whole experience to the point where I'm going to stay the hell away from the States for the time being. Going through the current paranoid customs process once was scary and degrading enough.


    * Amazingly a Wayan Brothers movie that does contain some good jokes.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    1. Re:It's their fault for being Muslim by TarPitt · · Score: 1
      One could argue that traveling to the United States while being Muslim/Arabic does count as self-inflicted harm. I'm reminded of the movie Don't Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice In The Hood* where the protagonists are arrested for being black on a Wednesday.

      This is not too far from being the truth in the recent pastn(until the late 1960's):

      A sundown town is a community in the United States where non-whites -- especially African Americans -- were systematically excluded from living in or passing through after the sun went down. This allowed maids and workmen to provide unskilled labor during the day. ...

      n some cases, signs were placed at the town's borders with statements similar to the one posted in Hawthorne, California which read "Nigger, Don't Let The Sun Set On YOU In Hawthorne" in the 1930s


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town
      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    2. Re:It's their fault for being Muslim by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It still goes on. There's an unofficial crime around here called "driving while being black or brown". Interestingly enough, black police officers are often the enforcers. Sometimes it's hard to explain people.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  51. Re:Proprietary data by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This means that there is less risk involved when a Chinese officer enters your hotel room and makes a copy of your hard drive.
    Damn that happens to me all the time. Hotels in Germany are already considering stopping to give out free skeleton keys to Chinese officers. It's that bad.
    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  52. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

    Can't believe this happening in a country which promotes itself as a global exporter of freedom.

    I'm sorry sir, but we are currently experiencing a freedom trade deficit. If you would like freedom, I suggest handing over the laptop and continuing on to a country we have democratized.
    -US Customs

    --
    Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
  53. The Canadian Dollar is cheap as well by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    It's a shame that we can't profit from the weak US Dollar but hey, Canada has a cheap currency as well. I think they're less aggressively paranoid at the borders, too. Okay, it's colder than in the States, but at least you don't have to expect that some customs officer steals your laptop.

    Just make sure that your flight doesn't make a stop in the States.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  54. Has been happening in Israel for years. by $kr1p7_k177y · · Score: 3, Informative

    These same invasive procedures have been in place in Israel for years. If you're "Flagged" by Airport security, they confiscate your Laptop, Phone, and Camera, and proceed to copy all of the media. It's invasive and unjustified - Just an excuse to feed their intelligence machine.

    I guess that's just the cost of "democracy" in the Middle East.

  55. Encrypt Everything by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the SECOND time I've posted this advice:

    Use Linux
    Use and encrytped drive.
    Have a "functional" environment that is unencrypted that has nothing more challenging than an email about how you think U.S. government is doing everything right and how the shrub is gods ear piece.

    We need to do what the French did in WWII. When the Nazi's ask for your papers, make sure you show them nice pleasant things. Transmit everything back and forth over the internet (encrypted locally).

    The Nazi movement, or The Nazis began to take over the USA starting with Roy Cohn and Senator McCarthy in the '50s, through Nixon, Reagan, Bush I/II.

    Can ANYONE dispute that this description:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

    Does not describe what is becoming of the U.S.A, the U.K. and a lesser extent the rest of Europe?

    The irony is that while Hitler and his armies were defeated in WWII, the power brokers and players that created him live on in power.

    1. Re:Encrypt Everything by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      The thing is, that's useful advice if you want to prevent the TSA from easily looking at the data on your hard drive.

      It does nothing to prevent them from seizing your laptop to begin with, which is the issue at hand right now.

      There isn't a technical fix for this. The fix is political.

    2. Re:Encrypt Everything by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Nazi movement, or The Nazis began to take over the USA starting with Roy Cohn and Senator McCarthy in the '50s, through Nixon, Reagan, Bush I/II.

      You're delusional.

      Not because of the point you're raising (I believe it's a valid one, though I would not use the word "nazi" to describe what is happening) but because you mentioned every republican administration after Eisenhower and left out every democratic administration. You're ignoring the fact that democrats controlled congress for most of the period that you're talking about, and that significant attacks on civil liberties occurred with a democrat in the white house.

      Face it, both of the major political parties in the US are responsible for what has been happening. Both of them will eventually lead us to the same place. I honestly don't know how you could have made the statement you did without realizing this...unless you are one of those people that believes that Barack Obama is going to magically change everything for the better?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    3. Re:Encrypt Everything by Stickney · · Score: 1

      Can ANYONE dispute that this description:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

      Does not describe your post?

      --
      ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    4. Re:Encrypt Everything by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember, even paranoids have enemies. Ridiculing an idea is much easier than disputing it.

    5. Re:Encrypt Everything by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      unless you are one of those people that believes that Barack Obama is going to magically change everything for the better
      It's hard to believe that the race for president is anything more than who will be the CEO of America Inc. America has enviable legal structures to protect the citizenry, but even Benjamin Franklin (basically) said that the constitution would not save America from despotism forever.

      Participation in democracy should be the DUTY of every person who lives in it, not floating around a feeble 20% of the population, how can democracy even function with so few people participating. The saddest thing is, so few people even care. Freedom is a fragile thing and has to be maintained.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    6. Re:Encrypt Everything by ^_^x · · Score: 1

      Actually I found one that fits a bit better...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

      From the article:

      Since Mussolini, there have been many conflicting definitions of the term fascism. Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that:

      Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[11]

      Paxton further defines fascism's essence as: ...a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief ones group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."[12]

    7. Re:Encrypt Everything by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      Goodwin's Law ... FTL!

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    8. Re:Encrypt Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. The second time you've posted it. Great.

      Now.. how does doing all that keep the TSA from taking your laptop and not giving it back?

  56. Re:secure in their persons, houses, papers, and ef by CptNerd · · Score: 1

    Check the back of your next airplane ticket, or the folder it's in. Once you enter an airport, you are no longer on US territory, you are in international territory, and you aren't protected by the US Constitution. Therefore, anything that is permissible in international law is permitted by airport authorities, and you don't have the protections against abuse that the Constitution provides. I learned that in the 80's, well before the idea of hijacking an airplane to use as a weapon came about.

    --
    By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  57. what is to stop by doginthewoods · · Score: 2, Interesting

    some one with, say a mac laptop, from putting a malicious PC virus on their laptop, & letting the screeners copy that to their databanks?

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  58. Stop travelling to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless it is completely unavoidable, stop travelling to the US. IMHO, tourism to the US should be completely boycotted. Personally, unless it becomes the de facto standard, I will be trying to avoid visiting any countries that include any fingerprinting or other invasive biometrics for tourists.

    Boycott, Boycott, Boycott. Hit them where it hurts.

    1. Re:Stop travelling to the US by ^_^x · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, when they kidnapped Maher Arar and tortured him for a year that was plenty to put the US on my avoid list. For anyone who didn't follow that, he is a civillian who was found innocent, and the poster boy for "extraordinary rendition."

      I'm just afraid that if I fly somewhere else there will be a neccesary stop in the states - and basically they've shown that once you enter their territory, all of your human rights are forefeit. It's ironic that I would potentially visit North Korea because at least they would be concerned about not making tourists disappear when everyone's watching them. USA is too big a trading partner though, so they can apparently get away with the odd kidnapping and torture from time to time.

  59. Hostgator and Linode both increase quotas by mattr · · Score: 1

    I would just like to say that while I have not used either extensively yet, I have accounts on Linode.com and Hostgator.com and both have given me free upgrades since signup.

    I quit my old company because not only were they incompetent, they also turned out to be charging me premium rates for what was now less than their lowest level package.

    Seeing this thread I checked Hostgator and glory be, 600GB of storage space where there only used to be IIRC 200GB.

    Matt

  60. Everyone should use encryption! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot readers have an obligation to encrypt large amounts of data on their laptops!

    If only criminals use encryption, it will soon be illegal for anyone to encrypt.

  61. Encryption by antonymous · · Score: 1

    This is exactly why I encrypt all my data with the secure ROT13 algorithm.

    Twice.

  62. Full disk encryption perhaps not so good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lots of people here have suggested using encryption etc. I was feeling rather smug with my new laptop which has the disk fully encrypted (no partition nonsense either - I boot off a USB stick), but I'm not sure it's a particularly good idea anymore. After all when my laptop is turned on without the USB key in, it gives two loud beeps and an error message about the lack of boot record, which is hardly going to convince your average airport security that your laptop is working and isn't a bomb! Then I have to try and explain why i need to plug my USB stick in etc. When I do and suddenly the laptop/bomb is "activated" with pages of scrolling technical looking text I fully expect to get shot...

    So I think I'm going to put a liveCD in the drive before I next travel!

  63. Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

    We care more about how you randomly invade countries without reason, how you try to enforce your local laws and policy on weaker nations, and things like that.

    Justifications may have needed some work in some cases but there is nothing random about US invasions, no lack of reasons. Popular reasons in reason history consisted of the spread of communism and shooting at us.

    Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Was required to get rid of it (90s), but failed to do so under UN supervision or to properly document it so that the UN could verify after the fact. The US didn't want to take Saddam's word on it, and didn't trust in the UN's ability to discover the truth in the face of non-cooperation. Saddam wanted enemies to think that he may still have it, that would be a deterrent. His plan backfired. The truth of the matter is that no one really knew for sure until after the invasion and there were thousands of US boots on the ground going into every lab and palace. The fact that nothing was found, that the US got the unexpected answer, does not change the fact that short of such unfettered access we would have no answer. Saddam also had a tendency to shoot at US aircraft, not justification in itself but it does help to set a certain mood with regard to overall relations and level of trust.

    Afghanistan: The people behind 9/11 were here, and they were being protected by the government.

    Iraq I: They invaded Kuwait, were told to leave, and did not. Even the UN blessed this one.

    Grenada: Communists building a runway capable of handling long range Soviet bombers. The spread of communism was feared.

    South Vietnam: Communist North Vietnam fostering a civil war in the South, and invaded the South to a degree. The spread of communism was feared.

    South Korea: Communist North Korea invaded the south. The UN blessed this one. The US also feared the spread of communism.

    1. Re:Nothing random about invasions by The+Spoonman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s).

      Like a true American, you not only spelled the name of the country wrong (and the Freudian subtlety of the misspelling is particularly telling), you forgot to mention a) why the US did nothing about that back in the 80s aside from affirming our "friendship" to Saddam and giving him another $1 billion in military aid right after and b) where Saddam had gotten the technology for that gas and its means of distribution. (I'll give you a hint: you were trying to defend that country's "honor")

      The spread of communism was feared.

      And, what happens when the spread of American-brand "democracy" is feared? It's only so long before everyone gets tired of having "freedom" bombed into them.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    2. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Draknor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Justifications may have needed some work in some cases but there is nothing random about US invasions, no lack of reasons. Popular reasons in reason history consisted of the spread of communism and shooting at us.

      The problem with this argument / logic is that the United States (via its administrations & intelligence agencies) is guilty of even worse transgressions, so other countries have more than adequate justification for attacking us.

      Justification / rationalizations may sound good when pitching the story to popular media, but aren't good for long-term stability. "Eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" - at some we've got to stop poking eyes out, even if we can justify it.

      Need some examples of US action that other countries could (have?) use for justification of military/terrorist action against the US? Check out this sobering list of CIA "secret mercenary armies".

    3. Re:Nothing random about invasions by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Was required to get rid of it (90s), but failed to do so under UN supervision or to properly document it so that the UN could verify after the fact.

      Sonny, as an American, I can tell you have been drinking the Kool-aid far too long. Did you not watch the events leading upto and after the Iraq invasion? Yah know, where they couldn't find evidence of WMD's? A little fact like that just might piss some people off.

      Here is my little paranoid fantasy of why the US invaded Iraq. First, there is oil. The US has enough, but the powers that be want more. Second, there is this little quote by President George W. Bush: "After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time." Thus a personal vendetta that has killed thousands of American solders. Killed many, many more Iraqi civilians. Left a wake of casualties.

      Wake the fuck up.

    4. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Like a true American, you not only spelled the name of the country wrong (and the Freudian subtlety of the misspelling is particularly telling)

      Why attribute malice when overzealous software and a lack of proofreading will do? The original typo is "raq", which gets autocorrected to "rag", and the missing "I" is manually added without noting the preceding change.

      There is no Freudian slip since Saddam is not Iraq. The territory of Iraq and its people represent one of the births of agriculture, one of the births of civilization, one of the births of a written legal system based upon fairness, etc. I've viewed the nation and people of Iraq as more of Saddam's victims for decades, not his willing accomplices.

      I think if this conversation tells us anything about bias it is clearly telling us about yours, not mine.

      you forgot to mention a) why the US did nothing about that back in the 80s aside from affirming our "friendship" to Saddam and giving him another $1 billion in military aid right after and b) where Saddam had gotten the technology for that gas and its means of distribution.

      Even if true they are off topic. The fact remains that the US invasion was not a random event. The potential threat existed. Even if one accepts your position one could argue that the US more morally obliged to clean up the mess it created. In any case, not random.

    5. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      The problem with this argument / logic is that the United States (via its administrations & intelligence agencies) is guilty of even worse transgressions, so other countries have more than adequate justification for attacking us.

      You need to re-read my post. I'm not arguing that the reasons for invasion were always well thought out and justified. I am merely arguing that the countries are not invaded on a random basis as claimed, reasons do exist.

    6. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Sonny, as an American, I can tell you have been drinking the Kool-aid far too long. Did you not watch the events leading upto and after the Iraq invasion? Yah know, where they couldn't find evidence of WMD's? ... Wake the fuck up.

      I think you are overemotional and failing to recognize the classic armchair quarterbacking that you are engaging in. The fear that Saddam may still possess WMD was real prior to the invasion. The issue was not determined until *after* the invasion. Saddam had it at one time and he *failed* to document its destruction, or to have the UN supervise its destruction. The UN's failure to find evidence of current WMD did not *prove* the absense of WMD. They had been fooled in the past. There was active interference in the past. It was not until there was unfettered near-simultaneous access to all facilities and palaces that the issue was settled, and that was post invasion. If there were no invasion, we would still probably not really know.

      Now calm down and try to think for a second. Does this prove the invasion was justified? No, it proves neither justified nor unjustified. The point is that the decision makers did have rational reasons. Rational reasons can exist on both the incorrect and correct side.

    7. Re:Nothing random about invasions by a_nonamiss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I don't agree with this guy one bit, but how is this modded troll? Just because people don't agree with his opinion? I troll mod should be reserved for "FIRST POST!!!", people from the GNAA or someone who says "All you liberals suck! GO USA!!!" His opinion, while disagreeable to some, is still valid.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    8. Re:Nothing random about invasions by sholden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So "you haven't proved you don't" is good enough to invade a sovereign country. I guess that meshes well with "you can't prove you're not" being good enough to send you off to an offshore jail for some "interrogation".

    9. Re:Nothing random about invasions by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Why do you believe that the threat was really feared?

      According to what I have heard, before Bush started really beating the drums for war he was given a briefing from the CIA which said (roughly) "Saddam is not threat to anyone outside his own country."

      So I think that Bush made certain that he was tackling a really weak opponent, and one that had been forcibly disarmed, and which he KNEW had been forcibly disarmed. Then, having picked a suitable target, he started inventing justifiers. (Which you seem to believe that he believed.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Nothing random about invasions by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 3, Informative
      I think you are overemotional and failing to recognize the classic armchair quarterbacking that you are engaging in.

      Duly noted. I get upset about the senseless loss of life. :-|

      However, since the start of the war, there have been numerous reports that the Administration misled the American people by inflating the threat. Here is a quote from one such source. Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above, by:
      • Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single "WMD threat."
      • The conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose, distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war. (p. 52)
      • Insisting without evidence--yet treating as a given truth--that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
      • Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)
      • Misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire. (p. 53)
      Here are a bunch of other reports as well.
    11. Re:Nothing random about invasions by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0, Troll

      Notice my sig. Notice the GP's moderation. Then just forget about it ... U.S.-bashing is about 20% fact plus 80% ignorance.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    12. Re:Nothing random about invasions by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

      Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s).

      The potential threat existed.

      What threat? Saddam had no delivery system capable of reaching the US with those "WMD".

    13. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      I think you are overemotional and failing to recognize the classic armchair quarterbacking that you are engaging in. Duly noted. I get upset about the senseless loss of life. :-|

      And you believe that hysteria helps guide one out of an indescribably complex situation?

      However, since the start of the war, there have been numerous reports that the Administration misled the American people by inflating the threat.

      Keep in mind that all of these claims were being offered in an incredibly partisan political environment. "Inflating the threat" is sometimes political spin on taking a pessimistic perspective. In a post 9/11 environment where many were getting crucified for underestimating one enemy it is natural to err on the side of overestimating another. If you were an analyst, what would be the prudent choice when there is doubt, lean towards underestimation or overestimation?

      Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single "WMD threat."

      That is how the military has been trained since the 1950s. It is a common perspective to give these a certain equivalence.

      Insisting without evidence--yet treating as a given truth--that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)

      It would be negligent for threat analysts to not consider a scenario where Saddam shares some amount of WMD with terrorists. His support for international terrorism was well documented. Even without his approval a rogue agent could share. As was done in Pakistan with nuclear weapons design.

      Misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire. (p. 53)

      Inspectors are gatherers of data, not analysts. Between a lack of confidence in inspectors, additional information sources, and a rational tendency to overestimate a potential enemy it is understandable for an analyst to not accept an inspector's "minor" appraisal. The corruption at the UN oil for food programs proves that a lack of confidence in the UN was not unwarranted.


      Things are far more complex that you suggest, and the data is not as clear as you suggest.

    14. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      So "you haven't proved you don't" is good enough to invade a sovereign country.

      The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so. Iraq was not operating as a fully sovereign country until that agreement was fulfilled, certain restrictions were in place. As demonstrated by the no fly zone, certain economic restrictions, etc. That's the price a country pays for losing a war.

    15. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      According to what I have heard, before Bush started really beating the drums for war he was given a briefing from the CIA which said (roughly) "Saddam is not threat to anyone outside his own country."

      I'm sure that quote is missing a qualifier such as "at this time".

      Then, having picked a suitable target, he started inventing justifiers. (Which you seem to believe that he believed.)

      If Bush had done nothing and Saddam eventually developed a nuke, a bug, or a nerve gas many of the same people who criticize him for removing Saddam would have criticized him for doing nothing to prevent the acquisition of such weapons. Ignoring the politicized environment that exists where whatever choice you make the opposition will demonize you, you don't think that he may have made a moral choice that the lesser of two evils would be to act to prevent acquisition of such weapons and to be wrong?

      Consider the generational perspective too. Older generation are more aware of the option the British and French had to use force to prevent Hitler's rearming of Germany. They chose not to act. When comparisons are made to Hitler, older generations often think of this failure to take preemptive action. After World War II there was a strong sentiment that it would be better to intervene and to be wrong than to allow a larger tragedy to develop. I think you need to consider this when evaluating Bush's decision making. I do not believe he invented justifiers, I believe that he honestly believed there was a long term threat and chose what he felt was the lesser of two evils.

    16. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      What threat? Saddam had no delivery system capable of reaching the US with those "WMD".

      He had a missile program and he was making continuous progress with respect to range.

      More importantly, the decision to invade was made in a post 9/11 environment. Al-qaeda had no delivery system either. At the start of the manhattan project one delivery system considered was sailing a ship into the enemy's harbor and detonating a device, they did not know they could build a device small enough to fit on a bomber.

      It is rational to consider future enemy capabilities and try to preempt them.

    17. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't agree with this guy one bit, but how is this modded troll? Just because people don't agree with his opinion? I troll mod should be reserved for "FIRST POST!!!", people from the GNAA or someone who says "All you liberals suck! GO USA!!!" His opinion, while disagreeable to some, is still valid.

      It is expected. The debate over this war is highly politicized. Honest mistakes become intentional lies. Prudently erring on the side of overestimating an enemy is a campaign of deceit. Those who guessed right before the answer was known are the geniuses of foreign policy. It is heresy to suggest that those who decided to invade may have had rational beliefs, that being rational and being correct are two different things. This is why there was so much support at the time of the voting for the authorization of force. It was the perfect political opportunity. There was no down side. If WMD is found claim credit. If WMD is not found claim you were deceived.

    18. Re:Nothing random about invasions by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      In a post 9/11 environment where many were getting crucified for underestimating one enemy it is natural to err on the side of overestimating another. If you were an analyst, what would be the prudent choice when there is doubt, lean towards underestimation or overestimation?

      How about assessing the threat accurately rather than burying counter evidence--something the current Bush administration is very adept at and has done in other sectors as well. This isn't a case of "oops, I did it again." The Bush administration systematically painted a picture far more dire than was the case known at that time.

      It would be negligent for threat analysts to not consider a scenario where Saddam shares some amount of WMD with terrorists. His support for international terrorism was well documented.

      Considering a scenario and acting on it are two very different things. There was a scenario where terrorists flew a plane into a building. There had even been attempts (at least one) made in Europe before 911. But there was no credible evidence at the time of an impending attack during the lead-up to 911. Sure, analysts can look back and put together a path, but I think missing 911 was a big, but honest mistake that anyone could have made.

      To your second point, there are lots of countries that support terrorism in Africa and in Asia. All well documented. Why haven't we attacked those countries? If terrorism is such a threat, then we should attack where ever it is. Oh, and while we are at it, let's stop training the "terrorists" in guerilla warfare. The US training of the Taliban to fight the USSR back in the 80's comes to mind.

      The attack on Afganistan and Iraq were both unwarranted attacks that have not had the intended effects. Terrorism is not crushed. The threat is still real. That is the result of the misguided philosophy that might makes right.

    19. Re:Nothing random about invasions by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      It was the perfect political opportunity. There was no down side. If WMD is found claim credit. If WMD is not found claim you were deceived.

      The Bush Administration deceived first, then tried to rationalize. Not the other way around. For deceit to work, it has to be hidden. That the deceit is coming out now is just a natural progression of history.

    20. Re:Nothing random about invasions by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      Well, like I said, I don't really agree with your point of view. :) I think that our administration had a boner for Iraq since before Bush's term even started. I think that the charges of WMD were trumped up as an excuse to invade a country that, while not the greatest place in the world, was more or less minding its own business. And if we're going to criticize a country for human rights violations, we should really take a long, hard look at our largest trading partner before killing thousands of innocents in the name of "Saddam was a bad guy."

      That being said, I disagree ten times more with the douchebag(s) who tried to censor your opinion because he/she doesn't agree with it. The lynch-pin of freedom is the ability to tolerate, even rationally discuss with those with whom you disagree. I probably didn't change your mind about the war in Iraq with my little soapbox spiel above, and you didn't change my mind with your previous post. However, I think that we are both richer people for having exchanged points of view and engaged in rational discussion.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    21. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      The Bush administration systematically painted a picture far more dire than was the case known at that time.

      I believe that to be a highly revisionist statement. What we had at the time were many unknowns. The UN's assurance that inspections are or would be successful, and intelligence estimates from countries profiting from military and oil trade with Iraq, were as tainted as those of hawks who wanted Saddam's head for decades. Nothing was *known* until a later time when US troops were on the ground inspecting facilities and palaces all over the country. Prior to that either side could have been correct, both sides were guessing, but one side knew of a way to be sure.

    22. Re:Nothing random about invasions by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      And, what happens when the spread of American-brand "democracy" is feared? It's only so long before everyone gets tired of having "freedom" bombed into them.

      And the US got tired of being attacked by terrorists and having civilians (and military men and women) murdered by cowards. Clinton didn't do anything about terrorist attacks while he was in office:
      1) the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
      2) the Khobar Towers attack
      3) the August 7, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
      4) and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.

      Bush, on the other hand, did react. The actions taken by terrorists on 9/11/2001 were a declaration of war. In war civilians do get killed, especially when the aforementioned cowards hide among the civilians, but at least when civilians are killed by the US military it is by accident and not on purpose unlike the cowards who attack the US.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    23. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Scrameustache · · Score: 2

      The fear that Saddam may still possess WMD was real prior to the invasion. Not according to the inspectors. You know, the people who were actually there, actually looking for them, and assuring Bush that he was wrong to think so.

      The UN's failure to find evidence of current WMD did not *prove* the absense of WMD. Until you provide *proof* that you aren't a child molester, I'll just assume that you are, you dirty perv.
      --

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

    24. Re:Nothing random about invasions by livewire98801 · · Score: 1

      What's to say that the Biological and Chemical weapons he was threatening to have didn't at the time? We were quite vocal about invading before we actually deployed, and Syria is right on the border.

      I seem to recall seeing satellite images of covered truck convoys headed over that border when things started getting hot down there, though I doubt I could find them now.

      Not that I'm pushing one conclusion over another, I'm just saying that it's possible. Also don't forget that the powers that were in that region had been torturing their own people for generations.

      I personally think we need to withdraw from the whole area, but we need to do it right. A quick bailout without proper planning would do more damage than just glassing the whole area from the air. . .

      --
      "He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
    25. Re:Nothing random about invasions by earlymon · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that you're 100% right in your criticism.

      One of the favorite forgottens of the '90s conflict and its aftermath with Iraq:

      While on patrol, a group of soldiers literally stumbled over a large circle of pipe out in the desert attached to an innocuous facility. Being a news junkie - and working in a related field at the time - this one hit me like a ton of bricks. It was broadcast late night, but because Joe Reported never really got it, or so I speculate, it was one of those not-often repeated stories (again, anomalous) but its implication did become part of "what everyone knew."

      http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-hide-seek-9-91.htm
      http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117790.400-iraq-clings-to-its-nuclear-secrets-.html

      If the question is why were so many willing to believe in WMDs in the first place, this time around, there it is. That we did so is shameful, but it wasn't without cause.

      To have been lied to by our leaders is beyond infuriating. But we've also been played by them in another way. What didn't come out in popular media until much later - that I, a news junkie, am aware of - is Saddam stupidly bluffing and intimating that he did or could possess such capability in his responses to the West. He just didn't believe that Dubya would do anything about it.

      I guess my point is to emphasize that we weren't just lied to, and we weren't just sheep to believe the lies. We were misled by guys who later decided to take the heat as liars instead of guys who were too stupid to recognize bluff from data. I guess I'd damned well be neither, but if I had to admit to the American public that a) I'm a lying politician or b) I'm a politician dumber than Saddam, - well, let's just say I can maybe see how the choice was made.

      So, we weren't just sheep believing lies. We were sheep to believe the under-qualified. I'm guilty of not buying it until Colin Powell supported the position. Prior to that for me, it was easy: claims by idiots in government. So I bleated along complacently because I thought Powell's judgement would be different - trustworthy. I forgot - as did anyone like me - this simple adage: Tell me who your friends are, I'll tell you who you are. I should have known if one would get pulled up or one would get pulled down if you put Cheney and Powell alone in a room together.

      As far as your personal paranoid fantasy - take heart. You nailed it in one. For a bunch of fancy words outlining this, see an earlier post of mine in this topic, if you care. Not claiming to have proved anything, but I did use a lot of correctly spelled words - your view is neither uniquely yours nor fantasy - paranoid or any other kind, IMO.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    26. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had a missile program and he was making continuous progress with respect to range.

      He had no money, one of the largest yet most poorly equipped armies in the Middle East, a lack of scientists (most of them had gone to countries that could pay them post Desert Storm) and I guess if you qualify "continuous progress" with "over a period of two decades" then yes, the Iraq missile program had progressed from short range to medium range missles that could probably hit Israel or Pakistan with some degree of accuracy. Iraq had made no concrete progress towards developing any long range missiles and couldn't even dream of intercontinental ballistic missiles unless Russia started to sell them on the sly.

      Iraq was all mouth and no trousers, and everyone knew it. Not even Iran, Turkey or Israel seriously thought that Iraq was a threat. If they had, they could and would have done something much sooner themselves. Iraq didn't have the money or friends to make trouble after the early nineties and Saddam was too busy trying to stop the Kurds getting too bolshy to worry about much else.

      If George W. Bush seriously and honestly believed that Iraq was a threat to the United States of America it just shows how little faith he has in the country he leads.

    27. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true. Saddam was no threat to the USA, or even to his neighbors.

      He was concerned with one thing only: staying in power.

    28. Re:Nothing random about invasions by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Like a true American, you not only spelled the name of the country wrong (and the Freudian subtlety of the misspelling is particularly telling) ... I don't believe that what I'm about to say isn't voicing the opinion of many hereabouts: some of us Yanks know a lot of non-Americans and non-natively-born Americans and you all tend to get on our fucking nerves from time to time with your arrogance of language usage. Yes, most all of us are _so stupid_ that we only speak one language.

      In the old days, we had a stupid saying - when you point one finger, three point back at you. On the odd chance that it wasn't so stupid after all, let's see if we can count three fingers:

      1. The guy is guilty of a typo but you find it necessary to berate him personally before arguing your counterpoints. (I'll give you a hint - you're entirely sanctimonious in this ad hominem.)
      2. I say you just proved yourself to be a grammar or spelling Nazi. (I'll give you a hint - Nazi wasn't coined as an Americanism.)
      3. You got modded 3, Insightful, proving that that others condone this practice. If he's got others condoning his point of view, they're true Americans, too, but those that condone you are all insightful? (I'll give you a hint - you don't need to study Freud to learn about hypocrisy.)

      I've already posted elsewhere on the Kurds and the WMDs. I choose not to do so either way in this thread - because you upped the ante.

      When you attack the man before you attack his ideas, you are simply attacking a man who has spoken - it is that simple.

      What to know what a true American is? He's someone who defends a guy's right to speak, whether he believes in his point of view or not.

      This ain't flamebait or trolling, but the same mentality that modded you insightful may mod me so. All I'm guilty of is giving you a chance to see how it feels to be attacked for what I see you guilty of - sanctimony, conformance and hypocrisy. You attacked him over a fucking typo as proof of what you see him guilty of - being a true American.

      If you're man enough to believe your ideas stand on their own, I challenge you to apologize. And no, I don't even know him. I don't even know what he believes in.
      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    29. Re:Nothing random about invasions by the+99th+penguin · · Score: 1

      So "you haven't proved you don't" is good enough to invade a sovereign country. The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so. Iraq was not operating as a fully sovereign country until that agreement was fulfilled, certain restrictions were in place. As demonstrated by the no fly zone, certain economic restrictions, etc. That's the price a country pays for losing a war.

      So breaking that agreement should result in UN approved sanctions against Iraq, not a military response.

    30. Re:Nothing random about invasions by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 1

      You've missed Hussein's intended switch to selling oil for euros. As long as oil is sold only for US dollars, the oil serves as the standard for the US currency. If the Middle Eastern oil producing nations switch to euros, the US can no longer outsource its runaway inflation.

    31. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      "The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so. Iraq was not operating as a fully sovereign country until that agreement was fulfilled, certain restrictions were in place. As demonstrated by the no fly zone, certain economic restrictions, etc. That's the price a country pays for losing a war."

      So breaking that agreement should result in UN approved sanctions against Iraq, not a military response.


      They tried that for 12 years and accomplished nothing. On second thought, it did accomplish something, an increase in corruption at the UN as they managed "Oil for Food". Sanctions enriched Saddam and his henchmen and increased the suffering of the average Iraqi citizen. The later was Saddam's intent, a method of putting pressure on the UN to lift the sanctions.

    32. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Not according to the inspectors. You know, the people who were actually there, actually looking for them, and assuring Bush that he was wrong to think so.

      The inspectors who were fooled in the past, and their errors undiscovered until Saddam's son-in-law defected.

    33. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is rational to consider future enemy capabilities and try to preempt them.

      I'd rather lose a few buildings and planes every once in awhile, thanks.

    34. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      There were UN approved sanctions for 12 years, what exactly did it accomplish? Jack and shit. I hate to break this to you, but the UN doesn't actually *do* anything. They have a Security Council seemingly hand-picked to be unable to get anything done (permanent members that all disagree with each other, and a unanimous vote required to do anything... I'm sure that looked good on paper.) The only thing I've ever seen the UN do, in my entire lifetime, is issue "strongly worded letters."

    35. Re:Nothing random about invasions by FLEB · · Score: 1

      So far we have mindless underreaction and senseless overreaction. Any chance of getting a #3, "Measured reaction taken in a logical and pointed manner"?

      "Yee-haw! Bomb the crap out of everybody!" is a reaction dubiously preferable to none at all, even assuming you happen to bomb the crap out of the right people in the process.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    36. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The inspectors who were fooled in the past What us wrong with you is that, not only were you fooled in the past, but you're defending the ones who fooled you.
      Stop being an idiot.
      --

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

    37. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please stop speaking for others.

    38. Re:Nothing random about invasions by laura20 · · Score: 1

      I guess my point is to emphasize that we weren't just lied to, and we weren't just sheep to believe the lies. We were misled by guys who later decided to take the heat as liars instead of guys who were too stupid to recognize bluff from data. I guess I'd damned well be neither, but if I had to admit to the American public that a) I'm a lying politician or b) I'm a politician dumber than Saddam, - well, let's just say I can maybe see how the choice was made.

      No, people were pretty much morons. Anyone who seriously considered chemical weapons to be "WMDs" was a moron. Nukes are city-killers and weapons of "mass destruction"; chems are battlefield denial weapons and terror weapons, they are terribly inefficient mass killers. And you sure as hell don't need to import them from Iraq; a bunch you can cook in your kitchen and the rest can be done in an even minimally equipped lab. The idea of going to fucking WAR because a country had them was ludicrous beyond belief.

      Someone will probably again use them again for the extra frisson of terror that novelty gives, but frankly, they'd be wasting their time. Give me 20 footsoldiers and with 20 liters of nice clear flammables in a water bottle, front and back of ten rush hour subway cars, and the emergency brake and I'll give you grief and terror that would make a dinky sarin attack look pathetic. If I want a chem attack, infiltrate a few people in as truck drivers -- and believe me, the standards are low -- or simply hijack a few chlorine tankers and drive them into an elementary school.

    39. Re:Nothing random about invasions by evought · · Score: 1

      So "you haven't proved you don't" is good enough to invade a sovereign country.

      The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so. Iraq was not operating as a fully sovereign country until that agreement was fulfilled, certain restrictions were in place. As demonstrated by the no fly zone, certain economic restrictions, etc. That's the price a country pays for losing a war.

      That:

      1. Presumes the validity of the first war. Given communications with the State Department before the invasion of Kuwait, it can be viewed that we either severely dropped the ball or gave Iraq permission to invade Kuwait (by considering it an "internal problem"). Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, whether "justified" or not, had at least as much basis as our invasion of Iraq (repeated Kuwaiti violations of oil production treaties).
      2. Presumes that the victor not only has the power but the moral right to impose whatever conditions they feel like. Look where that got us after WWI.
      3. Presumes that Iraq violated the conditions and severely enough to warrant the reprisals. Scott Ritter, the former head of the inspection team, resigned over the fact that he did not believe the weapons were there and that his recommendations were not taken seriously. Similar circumstances lead to the Valerie Plame affair. On the balance, we had no reason to believe they had anything of the sort (and much evidence otherwise). "I don't like the guy's attitude," does not justify an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. Even if it did, there are a lot of problems in the world and you pick your fights.

      Pragmatically, we run the danger of teaching other countries that they will be punished whether they try to comply with our demands or not, so it is better to actually have WMDs as a bargaining chip. How many nuclear capable nations have we invaded recently?

      Pape's exhaustive analysis of suicide terrorism shows that it does not grow out of terrorist groups escalating their methods. Rather, it grows out of guerrilla/insurrection movements (not previously "terrorist") when they are not having an effect and run out of options. What do desperate people do when we back them into the corner where even suicide terrorism is not getting our attention? Add in the point above and connect the dots.

    40. Re:Nothing random about invasions by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I trust you realize that if those arguments are valid, then every single country on earth is justified in violently invading the US?

      Let's keep it simple. It was an immoral invasion with no acceptable justification. I'd just as soon not say that other people are justified in invading my home.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    41. Re:Nothing random about invasions by huckamania · · Score: 1

      The attack on Afganistan and Iraq were both unwarranted attacks that have not had the intended effects.

      Afghanistan was a legitimate target and has produced desired effects. A. Removed the Taliban and AQ from a place of power. B. Installed a friendly, moderate government. C. Locked the enemy in ground combat.

      All of those are good things, in my opinion.

      As far as Iraq, WMDs have been found and documented. Also, even Saddam thought he had a WMD program.

    42. Re:Nothing random about invasions by evought · · Score: 1

      [snip]

      If the question is why were so many willing to believe in WMDs in the first place, this time around, there it is. That we did so is shameful, but it wasn't without cause.

      [snip]

      I guess my point is to emphasize that we weren't just lied to, and we weren't just sheep to believe the lies. We were misled by guys who later decided to take the heat as liars instead of guys who were too stupid to recognize bluff from data. I guess I'd damned well be neither, but if I had to admit to the American public that a) I'm a lying politician or b) I'm a politician dumber than Saddam, - well, let's just say I can maybe see how the choice was made.

      [snip] I agree. There certainly was an attempt to produce weapons in the past and Saddam Hussein was "not a nice guy." Though why we propped him up with that in mind is also a good question. It should also be kept in mind that part of the reason for Iraq's underground nuclear program (part of) had nothing to do with weapons. It had been amply demonstrated to them by Israel that any peaceful nuclear power program had better be underground as well. Once you are breaking the law one way, why not do so in others? Iraq was in a very difficult position regarding energy independence and its future. It made some stupid choices, but you can see the thread of how it got there.

      Saddam's bluster was pure idiocy and did not help his case, but it should have been ignored, and the fact that he had camel-dung for brains should not have resulted in us killing so many Iraqi people who perhaps did not. The big problem to me is that, even having made that decision, we took no thought whatsoever to the consequences of going in and what would be needed to get out and leave a functioning country behind. That would have taken an understanding of the fragile balance-of-power that kept Saddam in control in the first place. We would need to admit that, even having camel-dung for brains, he or something like him was what the Iraqi system demanded to keep from imploding. Instead, *we* have become Saddam Hussein, holding the system together with violence and suppressing dissent, and I don't think our brains are smelling much better as a result.
    43. Re:Nothing random about invasions by earlymon · · Score: 1

      Anyone who seriously considered chemical weapons to be "WMDs" was a moron.

      If your point is that the phrase, Weapons of Mass Destruction, is ludicrous and inaccurate, then OK - sort of. I don't think that was your point.

      If your point was dedicated individuals can do extreme harm to a civilian populace using makeshift weaponry, then I think I want to complain about the war in Afghanistan. I won't speak for others, but I knew a lot of normal peaceniks (no slag intended) who were against the Afghanistan campaign from square one - and changed their minds when easy victory without losses to America seeming to be taking place. Then, it was all necessary, Al Queda, El Queso, etc, etc, etc.

      If the point was nukes, and you want to call people morons, OK, but the history was - a) went to war over destabilization in the area could cascade to an unacceptable worldwide situation ('90s), b) mop-up uncovered definite proof that it could have been worse, Saddam was trying for weapons with an atomic or nuclear component, c) then the present debacle unfolded. Recall that in the early 2ks, we had what was considered to be a credible informant on the re-building of his nuke program ringing the dinner bell, only to learn that neither the informant nor his info were sufficiently vetted.

      I don't take you for a peacenik (again, peacenik is as much compliment as anything) given your phraseology - and what you postulate(!), but neither do I take you for a weapons analyst of any sort. I worked for the US Dod and DOE during the '80s and '90s (never as regular military) for a primary mission where the capability of the departments aligned for that mission, so I had no more qualm with the silliness of the WMD phrase that I did for Dan Rather describing the F-15E as "the E is for Eagle." IOW, it's hard to understand what phrase triggers what in another person's mind.

      The military categorizes the overall non-conventional threat as NBC - nuclear, biological, chemical - any one of which can render a populace and a battlefield pretty screwed, more so than due to conventional threats and effects. This campaign was nuts - it was ostensibly excused to deal with a small force, but force-on-force tactics were applied as if adequate supply lines - and correspondent security - weren't going to be at issue over the distances and timetable involved. This is a classic clusterfuck situation, as tends to happen when political leadership, the public, and the military aren't of one mind. Perhaps I'd short-circuited my explanation regarding Powell, because he didn't approve of such nonsense on his watch in the first war - and such plans were carted out before him, no doubt of that. He was against a second Vietnam, having been there, and the '90s wasn't one. This one surely seems to be.

      That chemical weapons are inefficient killers, OK, I guess. Depends on the objective, the cost to deploy and the results. Had chemical or biological weapons been deployed in any major way in just one engagement, we'd have had soldiers choking (more than they were) on their own protective equipment in that environment. If that's what you'd wanted, then the efficiency would have been actually pretty high, as is your example of attacking subways, so I'm not clear on your point

      To recap, you consider some people morons, chemical weapons are inefficient but are weapons of terror, and people thought WMDs meant chem weaponry and (by extension) people thought that Saddam was massing chem stockpiles.

      The nation was largely supporting the Afghan campaign and the weapons involved there were box-cutters. I don't think the American people questioned that campaign because box cutters were involved. I think they did question the odd, knee-jerk reaction to Dubya next targeting the guy who hurt his dad, and demanded a higher standard of specific proof to support the objective. The demands were not sufficiently high for the fears stated.

      People were dumb - fear does that to a lot of people. Get jumped in

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    44. Re:Nothing random about invasions by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Heard a great reason for why the administration both believed Sadam had WMD and would give them to terrorists. Some former al-Qaeda guy says that after Afghanistan, they decided that everyone who got caught should mention that they were getting WMD from Sadam. Basically a big misinformation campaign. With that info coming out of Afghanistan, the administration was pretty sure there were weapons and a threat. They discounted information to the contrary.

      That probably wasn't the only factor, but it does seem to explain a few things.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    45. Re:Nothing random about invasions by vsync64 · · Score: 1

      More importantly, the decision to invade was made in a post 9/11 environment.

      STFU

      S
      T
      F
      U

      --
      TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
    46. Re:Nothing random about invasions by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it was "moral or not. It wasn't
      in our longterm strategic interests. It was handled
      poorly and it didn't achieve it's stated objectives.

      Not only did Bush like to the public, he also created
      an atmosphere of corporate style sychophants around
      himself so that any facts that could lead to a sound
      decision about the matter were suppressed.

      Botching the war is far more relevant than whether or not he started it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    47. Re:Nothing random about invasions by The+Spoonman · · Score: 0

      I don't believe that what I'm about to say isn't voicing the opinion of many hereabouts: some of us Yanks know a lot of non-Americans and non-natively-born Americans and you all tend to get on our fucking nerves from time to time with your arrogance of language usage. Yes, most all of us are _so stupid_ that we only speak one language.

      You're also too stupid to realize that someone could have a negative opinion of the US AND also be a citizen of said country. I realize we're almost at the mandatory provincialism stage, but not entirely yet. Americans are generally also too stupid to put up a good argument as to WHY they only speak one language (there is at least one good one, BTW)

      The guy is guilty of a typo but you find it necessary to berate him personally before arguing your counterpoints.

      Yup, 'cause the typo itself was telling. But, unlike you, I didn't put a whole lot of effort into an ad hominem attack. I put more effort into the actual facts of the case, which I'm sure you don't understand, which is why you chose to ignore them. Of course, when have Americans allowed pesky facts to get in their way?

      When you attack the man before you attack his ideas, you are simply attacking a man who has spoken - it is that simple.

      Awww, isn't that cute, you have a mantra!

      If you're man enough to believe your ideas stand on their own, I challenge you to apologize.

      Nope, I think you should apologize. You're the one who obviously spent a good amount of time attacking what wasn't even the entirety of a sentence rather than an paying attention to what was really important. You're a fine example of the kind of pathetic, pedantic putz the citizens of other countries find to be representative of the US. So, YOU should apologize, and I expect it by end of day!

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    48. Re:Nothing random about invasions by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      Why attribute malice when overzealous software and a lack of proofreading will do?

      Because he's American. Duh.

      I've viewed the nation and people of Iraq as more of Saddam's victims for decades, not his willing accomplices.

      And a fine and real view it is. Unfortunately, were that the entirety of the case, we would've only needed to pullout as soon as Saddam's head popped off. Alas, it appears he had a lot more supporters than officially reported.

      I think if this conversation tells us anything about bias it is clearly telling us about yours, not mine.

      What? That I believe the US should be held just as responsible for every Kurdish death by American gas given freely to a known dictator? I really wasn't trying to hide my bias.

      Even if true they are off topic. The fact remains that the US invasion was not a random event. The potential threat existed.

      Well, they are true, and 100% on-topic. The fact of the matter is the US put into place what they happily claim to be a tyrranical dictator, give him devastating weapons which he then uses, and then gives him a billion more dollars as well as more military hardware and support. Any "potential threat" was put there BY the US, but it's the Iraqi people who are/have been suffering because of it. As for the "threat", what threat? Saddam had a missle program in the works, but those are easy enough to take out in an air strike. Why are we still mired in it four years after the mission had been accomplished?

      Even if one accepts your position one could argue that the US more morally obliged to clean up the mess it created. In any case, not random.

      Agreed totally. Send GW, his daddy and Rumsie over and let them sort it out on their own. Bring our troops home, they had nothing to do with it.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    49. Re:Nothing random about invasions by The+Spoonman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clinton didn't do anything about terrorist attacks while he was in office:

      I realize "facts" are the antithesis of the 'pub agenda, but your spin is so weak...

      1) the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center

      Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.

      2) the Khobar Towers attack

      the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects. On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)

      3) the August 7, 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania

      Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.

      4) and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.

      No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.

      But, let's be clear: By December 21 the CIA had made a "preliminary judgment" that "al Qaeda appeared to have supported the attack," with no "definitive conclusion."

      In other words, with only days left in office, Clinton still didn't know who was responsible for the attack. It was left to the next bumbling president to follow through. And, as of yet, he has not. Also, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism.

      Bush, on the other hand, did react.

      Yes, he attacked a country that really wasn't involved and then attacked another country later that had even less to do with the attack. So, really, not the best points to be making. Oh, and where's Osama? Gee, Dubya made damn sure to clean up daddy's messes, but hasn't really done anything positive for his own country.

      at least when civilians are killed by the US military it is by accident and not on purpose unlike the cowards who attack the US.

      Oh, that's ok then. I'm sure all of those orphaned children over there will see it that way and maybe they WILL see us as liberators?!

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    50. Re:Nothing random about invasions by ac3boy · · Score: 1

      "Can't we all just get along"

    51. Re:Nothing random about invasions by portnoy · · Score: 1

      The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so.


      No, it didn't. The terms of the cease-fire say that Iraq needed to come clean about its WMD activities, and places economic restrictions until such time. It did not say that the US could or should go in guns a-blazing unilaterally. Really. Read it for yourself.
    52. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nope, I think you should apologize."

      Of course you do, you're wrong. You proved his point far more effectively than he ever could have.

    53. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no Freudian slip since Saddam is not Iraq.

      I'm not sure what you think a Freudian slip is, but you can read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip
      "A Freudian slip ... is an error in speech ... that is believed to be caused by the unconscious mind."

      A derogatory term for people in the Middle East is "Raghead" (from the turbans they wear). The GP was making the point that the GGP was probably racist, unconsciously thinking "Iraq is full of Ragheads" hence "Irag".

    54. Re:Nothing random about invasions by earlymon · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. I did a great disservice to foreigners by comparing them to Americans with your attitude - for so doing, and for not properly recognizing that, I sincerely apologize.

      Thanks for pointing that out.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    55. Re:Nothing random about invasions by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I've viewed the nation and people of Iraq as more of Saddam's victims for decades, not his willing accomplices.

      And a fine and real view it is. Unfortunately,

      The question has to be asked of how this picture changes if Saddam is/was a American Intelligence asset being cashed in...mighty convenient that there was a strong relationship in the past.

      What? That I believe the US should be held just as responsible for every Kurdish death by American gas given freely to a known dictator? I really wasn't trying to hide my bias.
      No need to either, the kurds were primed to attack Saddam with US backing, the US pulled out at the last moment, Saddam rewarded the kurds the only way he knew how.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    56. Re:Nothing random about invasions by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Was required to get rid of it (90s),

      No one really mentions that Iraq was trading oil in Euro's, but challenging the default world currency wouldn't be a reason to attack a country, would it? Of course, the US sold Saddam those WMD's in the first place (we are talking anthrax and bubonic plague) to fight Iran, I mean wtf? I am looking at a photo of Don ald Rum sfeld shaking hands with Saddam, wtf? who himself was promoting the Iranian nuclear program, I mean wtf?

      Afghanistan: The people behind 9/11 were here, and they were being protected by the government

      Afghanistan: battle ground of the super dooper powers, the only country that can claim to have had the crap bombed out of them by BOTH sides. Incidentally Afghanistan was also being subjugated by the Taliban and around the sixth/11/2001 were also holding foreign nationals hostage for handing out christian leaflets and no-one noticed when the former leader of the mujahudean (please don't ask me to spell it) was assassinated leaving a power vacuum. Considering that the US were funding the mujahudeen against the soviets it's quite probable that the Afghanistan people probably hate russia and america in equal measure. And once the US lost interest in the region, leaving weapons, orgainisational infrastructure and money behind, the result is hardly surprising in retrospect.

      Iraq I: They invaded Kuwait, were told to leave, and did not. Even the UN blessed this one.

      But despite the fact that Iraq repeatedly complained that their oil was being raided by Kuwait drilling under the border but `the UN ignored it, funny that veto power thing in the UN and which countries can do the veto-ing.

      Grenada: Communists building a runway capable of handling long range Soviet bombers. The spread of communism was feared.

      South Vietnam: Communist North Vietnam fostering a civil war in the South, and invaded the South to a degree. The spread of communism was feared.

      South Korea: Communist North Korea invaded the south. The UN blessed this one. The US also feared the spread of communism.

      C'mon dood, who is currently America's major trading partner? China, the home of communism, where US companies are assisting the censor ship of the Chinese people. America had the opportunity to be rid of communism once and for all but has chosen to prop it up, Why?

      The answer is capital, not capitalism, just capital. The same capital that flows out of the US into other countries instead of employing Americans, instead of forcing to China to raise their standards for workers the US must lower theirs, instead of propping up democracy (the ultimate in radical ideas) tyranny is enforced and all the things that great American citizens have fought for is being lost.

      America, a great country, has forgotten diplomacy and is not the nation it was when admired and respected. Americans, I've noticed, often ask "Why do people hate us?", and as a friend I'd like to answer. Nations fear/hate America largely because it is being driven by parasitic greed driven corporate entities that couldn't give a shit about your freedom or mine. They only care about the almighty dollar and freedom is a commodity that, it seems, no one else in the world deserves. The people of America's allied nations can see that most American's have been lied to and deceived so much that the truth is completely lost to the average U.S citizen, who when challenged, will resort to hand on heart flag waving rhetoric. It is truly humiliating, and I do believe Lady Liberty has her head in her hands crying.

      Instead of listening to former superpowers like the French (I'm not French) your leaders belittled them when they tried to advise you sincerely and out of friendship. Meanwhile, your enemies (*our* idealogical enemies) c

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    57. Re:Nothing random about invasions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the original poster with the typo that debunked the racist accusation, not a third party:

      "There is no Freudian slip since Saddam is not Iraq. The territory of Iraq and its people represent one of the births of agriculture, one of the births of civilization, one of the births of a written legal system based upon fairness, etc. I've viewed the nation and people of Iraq as more of Saddam's victims for decades, not his willing accomplices."

      Sometime a typo is just a typo. The responder was desperate to attack and read something in that wasn't there.

    58. Re:Nothing random about invasions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      C'mon dood, who is currently America's major trading partner? China, the home of communism, where US companies are assisting the censor ship of the Chinese people. America had the opportunity to be rid of communism once and for all but has chosen to prop it up, Why?

      It is silly to compare the US of 200x with the 1950s and 60s. The fear of communism was real, it was a justification for fighting to many, the US and China had in fact met in combat in Korea. Today communism has fallen and is not perceived as a threat. It is naive to think that the "communism with a chinese face" bears much resemblance to the communism of Mao from the 50s and 60s.

    59. Re:Nothing random about invasions by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      It is silly to compare the US of 200x with the 1950s and 60s. The fear of communism was real,
      The only difference is that where once in America it was unthinkable to be searched and have you possessions confiscated at an airport, or you communications intercepted, now it is. Back then over 50 media outlets competed for the truth, now less than 6 compete to spew out rhetoric. Back then the fear of communism was justified, but today America justifies acting more like a communist states in the name of security.

      Today communism has fallen and is not perceived as a threat.
      America was less like China in the 50 and 60's and America is less of a threat to China than it is today. Meanwhile they deploy operatives into strategic sectors of industry and weaken you from within knowing full well that NOTHING will be done politically to stop them for fear of a brouhaha over how much foreign debt is owed to China. I remember reading somewhere that Chinese form of communism didn't see America as a threat because eventually it would wait until America self-destructed. China today may *look* more free (with cars and big buildings and no-one riding bicycles anymore), but ideologically they're not much different.

      It is naive to think that the "communism with a chinese face" bears much resemblance to the communism of Mao from the 50s and 60s.
      Do you honestly think America more free today than it was in the 50's and 60's. Oppression has the same face it's always had, and you're dreaming if you think that the threat of oppression has done anything but become more intense today.
      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    60. Re:Nothing random about invasions by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

      Notice my sig. Notice the GP's moderation. Then just forget about it ... U.S.-bashing is about 20% fact plus 80% ignorance.

      So your saying there is some truth to it?

  64. Your government at work by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Your government at work: Don't you feel safer with TSA's high school dropouts and mall security rejects protecting you?

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  65. Re:Encrypt Everything - Information Economy by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    The cost of the laptop, while not exactly trivial, certainly manageable and replaceable. You must keep all your data from the government because they'll hang you with it if they want to. Remember this quote:

    Cardinal Richelieu: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him"

    If they have your data, they will destroy you.

    The costs in being charged as a terrorist, becoming an "enemy combatant," and/or losing all your data is by far, much much, higher.

    The U.S.A. tortures its prisoners and the attorney general won't even rule out torture of American citizens. Of course, these criminals won't call it torture, they'll call it "waterbording" or something else. They'll use a name that implies nothing about the methods and argue that it is not torture. They use the cloud of dispute over the definition of torture to continue to use methods that were used by the Spanish Inquisition.

    It makes me sick.

  66. Invoking the 5th won't let you fly by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    She shouldda waited for that Supreme Court case that said divulging your password was a violation of your 5th amendment right.

    Until the Supreme Court declares that you have a constitutional right to get on an airplane invoking the 5th won't help. Flying is currently not a right so it can be denied.

  67. Re:Encrypt Everything - Information Economy by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

    In practical terms, however, the seizure of the laptop is what can freeze a traveller. Obviously, if I have sensitive information, I will probably not keep it on my laptop at all, but in either a small storage device or on a network, encrypted and secure. But if I'm a business or academic traveller, the seizure of a laptop can paralyze my work. If I'm important and wealthy enough to either be given or buy a new laptop immediately on the other end of security, that's fine. But many of us are neither. And we often need specialized software to work.

    If they are looking for an excuse to hang you, they've made it clear that they don't even need data any more.

  68. Dupe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before someone points out the obvious?

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/07/1412229

  69. It's Customs, Not TSA by Snowdog · · Score: 3, Informative

    As the article states and the TSA has noted on their blog, the searches and confiscations are being conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, not the Transportation Security Administration.

    (Not that that makes it right, but it helps to identify the correct culprit when complaining to the powers that be or even when just spreading the story.)

    1. Re:It's Customs, Not TSA by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

      Comment after comment made in total ignorance of this fact. That concerns me more than the invasions of privacy at the border.

      --
      If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
      Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
    2. Re:It's Customs, Not TSA by Loucks · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter who is behind it. TSA is the organization most people encounter (let's face it--most of us travel by air these days), and so they're going to be scapegoated no matter what the article actually says. Not that they're perfect, mind, but people seem to love crying about how unfair it is that they had their bags opened or had to be searched with a detector. I don't mind it when they're being polite and efficient. For all they know I've got a pound of C-4 in my notebook case and a detonator behind my belt buckle.

  70. Paper company conspiracy by KnowledgeEngine · · Score: 1

    I am flabbergasted no one here has caught on to the larger picture. This is clearly the government in cahoots with the (paper) notebook industry and the laptop manufactuers. Now we will all buy more calculators, and paper notebooks. Also it will help to sell more new laptops. Perhaps this somehow coincides with the launch of the MacBook Air. I suspect their next announcement will be it has the TSA's "Clear" certification, and the MBA is allowed on all flights. That would make more people buy the expensive thing. Just kidding. Friggin ridiculous TSA.

  71. exactly my point by tacokill · · Score: 1

    You made my point again.
    The employee would find themselves unable to board their flight at best (and thus unable to complete whatever task the company assigned to them), and arrested and possibly charged with some absurd federal crime at worst.

    Right. And, assuming the employee hasn't done anything wrong, what makes you think employers like seeing their employees locked up? If it happens a lot (or to key people), businesses will scream very loudly. Very very loudly.

    Of course your employer is going to tell you to comply. But once they find out laptops and/or data are being confiscated, their tune will change. You can't fight reality. And reality is, there are 2 choices: comply and let data be confiscated or fight and be arrested/delayed/hasseled. Either way -- your employer is not going to like it.

    1. Re:exactly my point by bug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um... why should I, as an at-will employee, shoulder the burden of this for my employer? If I were ever arrested at an airport for refusal to comply with Customs orders, my employer would have the briefest feelings of sympathy for my plight... before firing me. That would leave me arrested, possibly charged with a federal crime, and unemployed to boot.

      I like my job, and I like the company that I work for. However, I'm not about to go to jail for them or anyone else.

    2. Re:exactly my point by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      My employer has already gone to a method of storing documents that encrypts each doc as a PVF file, and you must contact a central keyserver to open the document each time you open it *or* resume from any form of standby.
      Since you have the data locally, a low bandwith link is acceptable for the key exchange.
      This is for employees who will be traveling *and* may not have fast internet access. All others are to not have anything secure on their notebook, and instead VPN into the datacenter to read/retrieve docs.
      As for me, They can not have my hardware (I'll fly a later flight and ship the damn thing FedEx if I have to), and I have a token windows partition to boot to so they'll see what they want.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  72. 2008 Campaign by PPH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, why aren't more people asking the various presidential candidates what they intend to do to restore the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the rule of law once elected to office?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  73. Encryption would not work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question is: do government agencies have the right to gain access or keep your personal information storage devices without valid warrant, just because you are boarding a plane or crossing borders?

    If they do, they will most likely have the right to demand any passwords required to access data - whether you encrypted it or not.

    Very simple.

  74. Use the Fifth Amendment by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1
    Step 1: Refuse to open your laptop
    Step 2: Have laptop confiscated
    Step 3: File fifth amendment charges

    nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; Is there a law that says you can take my laptop with absolutely no evidence of its contents?

    nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation If you're taking my laptop for the public interest, e.g. national security, then you can immediately buy me a nice shiny new one.
  75. Welcome to Export Controls! by redelm · · Score: 1
    Please note, Udy was stopped _OUTBOUND_ from Dulles to London. This is perfectly within the law since the United States exerts very strong jursidication and control over EXPORTS.

    Perhaps you think they shouldn't, but they have since at least 1790 when the worry was exporting straight pine timber to make British Navy masts and spars.

    Her laptop might itself have been technology that required an export licence, or it might have contained data that required an export licence. Nevermind logic of the laptop being made in Taiwan. Udy does not appear to be a US person (citizen or permanent resident), so she may not have been able to use the common licence exemptions for baggage, tools-of-trade and publicly-available software.

    The US Customs is perfectly capable to remaining in the 18th century when it suits them. Unfortunately, not much can be done short of an Act of Congress. About the only thing she could and should have got is a receipt.

  76. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by nguy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand how US democracy works. In the US, the president and the executive have broad powers to act autonomously. It's helped the US hold together for more than two centuries, while other democracies have fallen apart. Some presidents use this power unwisely, others use it wisely. For eight years, Bush held that power. Over the next couple of decades, Congress and American voters will decide on whether Bush used that power wisely or not, what to repeal, and which parts of it to write into law permanently. Furthermore, make no mistake, the US exports democracy for the purpose of helping its own political and financial interests, not as an end in itself. Maybe you should get away from your Eurovision and learn a little more about the world at large.

  77. Knoppix - leave the HD home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave the hard drive home and bring a Knoppix CD. If you have to bring data put in on a fully encrypted thumb drive or SD card, and stash it somwhere in your luggage.

    1. Re:Knoppix - leave the HD home by webweave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've done the Knoppix thing for many years, very handy when traveling. I've never had a laptop "stolen" but I've been asked a number of times to open it up and turn it on. They did not recognize the mac start up routine and I had to wait for a full boot to convince them. Now I just replaced the mac boot image screen with the windows desktop image and I'm off.

      Thanks for this article /. , I'm never going to bring anything but a freshly rebuilt laptop with only the data I need into the USA.

  78. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by nguy · · Score: 0

    From Europe, where I live, it appears that the USA is getting more and more like a banana republic every day.

    You're naive if you think that Europe is any different. Except for a little anti-American political posturing by European politicians, which plays well to European nationalist sentiments, on the whole, Europe basically implements the same policies as the US, and European voters have an even worse herd mentality than American voters. Hey, you're a prime example yourself.

  79. Healthcare data by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    Since my employer is a healthcare organization, there's a reasonably good chance that someone accessing my laptop would violate HIPPA laws. I'm not sure law enforcement can look at people's medical records without a court order, so there are likely some cases where government officials forcing someone to disclose private information may be unlawful.

    1. Re:Healthcare data by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      My company also deals with Healthcare. I don't think the TSA agent would get in trouble with HIPAA as he is not covered by the HIPAA rules. It would be more likely you who could be fined or face jail time for allowing a non-covered entity to view that HIPAA protected information.
      I think I would carry around my company's standard HIPAA Business Partner Agremment and let the guard know that before I can let him search my laptop that I need someone with legal authority (like vice president or higher) to sign for the TSA to read and sign the agreement.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  80. Actually,nobody teaches how sausage is really made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With 'free speech' zones, permits, other candidates snickering in concert when one makes one's point and such, I feel that protesting is pointless and might get you labelled a whacko hippie.

    Let's be real here: If you don't make at least USD$500k every year and you're not in a position where you can take off work at your discretion to participate in major party politics, you're currently a Non-Player-Character in this democracy.( See 'The American Ruling Class' http://imdb.com/title/tt0455906/, an inept documentary movie that is rather enlightening in spite of itself )

    The way things are really changed in this country is to get a group of like-minded individuals to register to vote as Democrat or Republican, start donating money and attending precinct party meetings and either eventually taking over the precinct organization by becoming the majority or chasing everybody else out. Get enough contiguous precints with your people installed, then you can push a state house candidate. Get a state house candidate elected and you begin to have a voice. And so on.

    Also, if you have a business or are in a profession, consider having your chamber of commerce or trade group hire a lobbyist. They're not cheap, but again, enough like-minded people banding together can pay for one.

    Third, have your trade group send press releases tying every bad event or anniversary to the fact that your agenda hasn't been adopted. Example: Wife-beating is highest on Superbowl Sunday. Not true, but it was one hell of a press release when it came out.

    Fourth, if you can, find and publicize some angle to tie the absence of your agenda to impending disaster for the interests of MSM broadcast and cable companies and their news divisions -- scare them and they'll scare everybody else for you. This is likely the only way to ovecome the self-interested censorship that the broadcast TV/radio news business seems to engage in to serve the TV/radio industry lobby.

    If you can make this happen and get whatever it is you want made into public policy, you're now just as dirty as the rest of the folks who make politics happen in the USA and I'm afraid I'm going to need to stage a protest march against you :-)

  81. I work for a company that does classified work by TarPitt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and after 9/11 when these restrictions were put into place, we were forbidden by company policy from taking any classified documents or other classified material with us on board commercial flights for just this reason.

    We have to send it in advance via secure courier now.

    Which leads me to believe the TSA doesn't care if you stuff is labeled "classified", they will go ahead and search it anyway

    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  82. You Stupid Bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Unfortunately, my employer has made it clear that they want their employees to cooperate fully with these searches, and afterwards tell corporate security."

    Exactly what is the employer going to think when out of their hundreds of employees, one guy keeps getting stopped and searched????????

    "Telling security" is a recipe for getting yourself fired, idiot.

  83. We're lazy by michaelmalak · · Score: 2, Insightful
    We in the U.S. are fed a steady diet of public education, American Idol, and high fructose corn syrup. I.e. we're lazy. Before the Internet, we couldn't have been bothered to even go to the library, not that there would be any information there after the government (which owns the library) sanitized it. The Internet has woken up 10% of the U.S. population. Blogging is hard work and takes a lot of research. A whole new generation is educating themselves, where public schools had tried to dumb them down. Young people, who get there news from Internet, told their parents about Ron Paul, who did not.

    The Internet is in the process of saving the U.S. from its century of tyranny. The only question is whether it will be soon enough. East Germans knew better, but by the time they did, it was too late.

    Ron Paul was a skirmish in the war for freedom. The next battle is paper ballots, and at least here in Colorado, at least for 2008, we'll have paper due to overwhelming public outcry for it. The next battle after that is to actually elect a defender of liberty using said paper ballots, by which time a larger percentage of the population should be getting its news from the Internet.

  84. Re:secure in their persons, houses, papers, and ef by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea is correct though the wording is in error. What is meant is that an airport is under the exclusive jurisdicition of Congress (USA Const. Art. 1 Sec. 8 Par. 17). These areas of exclusive jurisdiction means that Congress can pass laws for these areas apart from the restrictions of the Bill of Rights. See DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). Airports are one of the many places where 'the Constitution does not follow the flag'.

  85. U.S. is the mothership of banana republics. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Is this the United States or some banana republic?

    Being that the term 'banana republic' came into existence as a direct result of U.S. foreign policy and illegal wars, it should come as no surprise that one would find the parent specimens of such abusive practices in the land which created them.

    The U.S. used its foreign policy and semi-secret operations to crush budding democratic nations in order to reward American business, in this case, sugar and banana plantation owners, who basically wanted to use slave labor rather than pay fair wages to the locals. It still happens today. Venezuela is currently undergoing the same treatment where the U.S. government, big business and the CIA are doing everything in their power to cast Chavez as a villain and install a pro-American business military government. They're probably going to get away with it, too. The media in Venezuela are all pro-evil, big media owners being what they are. Chavez wanted the peasantry to own their own land and have a say in politics, have access to decent schooling and medical care and generally get out from under the boot heel of slavery. The horror! It's bad for business when your peasants are educated and strong. --Research the story, but stay away from the big American news outlets to do it; they're all a bunch of whores.

    If U.S. business and government are going to use such practices abroad, then you'd better believe that they're going to try to get away with as much of the same thing at home as they possibly can.

    So yes, the U.S. IS some banana republic. It's the mother ship of banana republics. Don't let all the shiny formed plastic fool you.


    -FL

  86. Justified? by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    "but it was certainly justified."
    My response-- MAYBE

    the more important response- what elements made it more justified for Iraq than for North Korea

    there is nothing that qualifies Iraq for invasion that you can't also apply to N. Korea, at greater levels of threat to the nation of the US..

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  87. Banana Republic treats you better by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but whenever I go to Banana Republic, CSA's try to be very helpful. Then I tell them "I'm just looking" and go to the clearance rack. They still offer to put my purchase in a box, though. I'd have to say it's a draw between Banana Republic and J-Crew.

    Oh, that's "banana republic," not "Banana Republic." My bad....

  88. On data encryption by Fuji+Kitakyusho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The importance of encrypting your data cannot be overstated. Even if you are not travelling with valuable intellectual property, the fact remains that most personal and business computers contain a wealth of information suitable for datamining. The oft quoted sentiment "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear." misses the point - I DO have something to hide - everything, in fact. Nothing criminal or otherwise illegitimate, but in the interest of privacy, I have no desire to disseminate the details of my associations, my business activity, my financial transactions, my personal communications, my sexual activities, my political opinions or even what I had for breakfast this morning, to any party for whom that information was not intended. Ergo, I make a point of storing sensitive information (intellectual property, etc.) in strongly encrypted files, and then nesting those along with everything else within a fully encrypted drive. If I were particularly paranoid (and I'm paranoid enough to have thought of it, but as yet not so much as to have implemented it), I could ensure that the relevant cryptographic keys are unknown to me and only able to be retrieved either from my client or from my office remotely. I understand that this thread has to do with confiscation of hardware, and that in of itself is certainly annoying, and perhaps unpreventable barring a significant change of law; however, the value of a laptop computer is limited, and the hardware itself is replaceable. The same cannot be said of the data carried on it, and in the event my laptop is confiscated, lost or stolen, I would like the worst-case scenario to be that I or my company is out the replacement cost of the hardware only, without having to worry about trade secrets being compromised, identity theft, data mining for nefarious purposes or unauthorized dissemination of contact information. I run a dual-boot machine with Debian GNU/Linux and Windows XP Professional. If you really want to be entertained, watch an airport security "professional" try to navigate around a system with X disabled.

  89. Attorney-client privilege by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    Communications between attorneys and clients are broadly protected from access by investigators. If your e-mail contains communications between you and your attorney, and your documents include privileged letters you composed in Word, that could make a very good reason to deny Customs access. The only folks the government would like to deal with less than angry employers are angry trial lawyers.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  90. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey, you're just as bad as us! That means we don't have to try and improve!"

    Moron.

  91. Illusion of Security... by nexuspal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How long would it take, say if you were driving at 50mph, to get through the airport fence, with a van full of people with ak's, all timed to the departure time of say 3 747's, and board the planes, fully armed, with explosives? That's the real threat imo...

    --
    I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure :-P
    1. Re:Illusion of Security... by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 1

      That's silly talk. I think that at that point, the pilots, crew, or certainly the passengers with cell phones would immediately notify the authorities. Simple matter: "I'm on such and such a flight, and several armed masked men have boarded with apparent ill intent." Even if the planes could get off the ground (which I highly doubt), there's no way that the hijackers could achieve anything more than destruction of those airliners. Even then, it might be extremely difficult for them to get inside.

      More dangerous still, in my opinion, is the idea that some commercial or military pilot could go off the reservation/be subverted by some group. Sure, there are checks and balances, but they hardly seem insurmountable. After all, many extremists have shown an alarming willingness to die, so a few years of subterfuge doesn't sound so problematic.

      The stupidest thing about all of this travel security is this: the weaknesses that led to 9/11 were mostly a lack of understanding and preparation, not a lack of capability. Now that we KNOW hijacked planes can be used as they were, I would be surprised if any hijacked plane in America survived more than 5 minutes before being shot down. Not to mention the fact that passengers and crew would be mighty hard to contain, as well. NONE of this has been influenced by any policy changes.

      Any future attacks will come where we're vulnerable, where there's a hole in our understanding -- just as it was 6 years ago. There are still plenty of spots where that's the case. It's fine to keep pouring our money and liberties down the drain, though... all in the name of countering a threat that has, for all realistic purposes, been nullified.

      --
      -----[0_o]-----
      We are not amused.
    2. Re:Illusion of Security... by nexuspal · · Score: 1

      Agree with the be subverted comment... IIRC, a plane went down before 911 with the pilot mumering someting about alah akubar, over and over again, and the "authorities" didn't know if it was a chant he made because the plane was crashing, or if the plane crashed because he made it crash. The NTSB concluded it was an "accident" if i recall correctly... And a plane "could" be flown, if someone backs it out, and that's assuming the federal gov isn't so brain dead that they haven't thought of such a possibility (and i think they are brain dead, and we all shall see what the next move is).

      --
      I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure :-P
  92. Canada by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 0, Troll

    Remember Canada kicked the US's ass once already. I don't think the US will try the invasion thing again. Having Washington D.C. burnt to the ground once is enough. It's cheaper to just buy your stuff so you can take your tinfoil hat off now.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  93. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey, you're just as bad as us! That means we don't have to try and improve!"

    I said no such thing.

    Americans are fixing their democracy.

    You worry about getting yours in order again.

  94. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should get away from your Eurovision and learn a little more about the world at large.

    Haha... hahaha... hahahaha....
    Nice joke, buddy. I mean, you surely couldn't be trying to imply that Europe is more insular than the US, right?

    Have you ever been anywhere outside the States?

  95. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by HiThere · · Score: 1

    That's because you believe what the government says about itself and its reasons. Don't. They lie much more often than they tell the truth.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  96. know what is pretty sad? by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 1

    it is probably going to work. Suppose your next president, whoever he/she may be, has the guts to do away wth this madness. All it takes is a small terrorist attack, and the government will back up. Look up at Israel. Every time there is a tiny hope of agreement, there are bombings and things go back to where they were. You've got yourselves in a pretty good mess my friends.

    --
    Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
  97. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

    Yes!

  98. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just it... Lately, we've been exporting our freedoms and keeping none for ourselves. Not that we've been very successful at exporting them either, mind you.

  99. I've carried military hardware in my carry-one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Posting as AC to avoid hassles at work, though none of this is secret. I work for a government contractor. We've carried working (non-classified) defense system components in our carry-ons before.

    One such case:

    TSA: "What is that?"
    US: (we answer truefully)
    TSA: "It's not going to melt the plane or turn on while you're flying or anything, is it?"
    US: "No, it doesn't have a power supply."
    TSA: "Well, we're going to need check it for explosives."
    US: "We'd really rather you didn't take it out of the case; it's fragile."
    TSA guy: 'Ok. We'll just check the outside then.'

    And that was it. We were wearing our company polo shirts, and we had some paperwork on company letterhead we could have waved around, but no one even asked.

  100. simple solution by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't travel to the US.

    There is no way I'm going to hand over my passwords to a just-above-minimum-wage dofus. Not if it means I can't take that flight. Not going to happen. Since by whatever perverse application of your totaliarian laws they can force me to, the only solution is to avoid the US the same way anyone with a sane mind avoids any other place where the insane rule.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  101. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by Snuhwolf · · Score: 1

    The whole implementation of the TSA was economical vs effective. The way to protect planes is Air Marshalls with automatic fire arms on every plane. Thats too expensive. A few 8.00 dollar an hour TSA shmucks is way cheaper.

  102. All they hate is our affluence by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    nothing more. US, Europe, really any "Western" (i.e. rich) society is cancer to their impoverished eyes.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  103. My Experience by Skythe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Australian citizen - went for a holiday in Bali with a friend and his family (who stayed at a different hotel). Australian customs on the way home said that they "needed to check my phone" to make sure it wasn't a stolen device etc etc. Found out later that they got my friend to go through every single one of his photos and i presume this is why i spent 30 minutes waiting for mine. They also opened up a sealed mouse that i bought over there with a USB Bluetooth dongle to check it. My friends laptop got confiscated for no apparent reason because they needed to check it (going to be sent back). His older brother (who was on an earlier flight)'s hard drive got confiscated for some porn on it. Anyway, nothing to add to the discussion except my experience over here.

  104. CVS by killmofasta · · Score: 1

    Boy, this makes for a perfect argument for using CVS for all your documents. Go ahead and take my laptop, I will be back in business in less than 1 hr. ( better yet, you may never need to take a laptop on board again! My CVS for my docs outgrew a 512Mb flash, so I store things on a 2GB now, except for my media, which I keep my Media stuff ( about 2GB ) on a ftp site.

    There was a post on /. a few years ago, about laptop hard disk reliability, and somebody replied how he checked everything he had into a CVS repositoary. Nice. Bet he still hasnt lost anything, and still dosen't care about losing his laptop.

    The other consideration is ... WHERE THE HELL IS HER LAPTOP GUYS?

  105. Remote Desktop by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    The last company I worked for had remote desktop setup for its traveling workers not only because it is easier to admin but because government border controls in most nations are now also covert espionage fronts for local officials (USA does this too). The question that comes to mind is if the remote server that the user logs into via the laptop is in another sovereign nation do you have the right to tell the US officials that they are exceeding their powers ? Also if you are forced to hand over the password and then 10 minutes later you alert company officials thus the account is frozen will the government arrest you ?

    1. Re:Remote Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My advice would be to configure remote desktop to not remember the last server logged into - and use a service such as Dyndns instead of an IP address. That way you just type in the domain, user and password. Someone inspecting your laptop should have no idea if you actually use Remote desktop or not since it comes with windows default install... Keep usual Openoffice etc programs on the laptop and some documents so that it seems to be actually used for something. Also if you really do everything over Remote desktop, stay in a hotel that provides a computer for you, then leave the laptop at home.

  106. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we do. Most citizens of the USA haven't been 100 miles from their home in their lifetime. They don't travel.

    Sitcoms - well, we find the strike comforting. Watching the old versions where the ending is known is particularly nice for TSA workers who are even less likely to have ever been ON an airplane due to their econimic situation.

    I recently flew to Hong Kong and asked the international TSA agent some question about the other side of the walkway. She told me that she'd never been there. Nice. Perhaps if more TSA agents actually had to fly, they'd find a more efficient way to perform their worthless duties?

    I sure am glad that low paid private companies were converted into low paid government employees - to make them "professionals" a few years ago.

    Why is it that my mother with a heart defiburlator always gets screened by an obvious butch lesbian?

  107. How do you know he was a vet? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Because he was wearing a medal, or because he was shouting "I was in WWII" while they patted him?

    Neither of those proves very much.

    --
    No sig today...
  108. Why would anybody bother with any of that? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    We live in an age where data can be instantly transmitted between continents. Would anybody bother hiding data in a laptop for "smuggling"?

    Much easier to image your hard disk, encrypt the file and start a copy of FileZilla.

    --
    No sig today...
  109. North Koreans think their country is Ok, too. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    You say that "for the most part I enjoy my life here."

    Have you ever lived anywhere else? I've seen plenty of TV documentaries where people in countries like North Korea think the country is well run and a safe place to live.

    Unless you've actually lived in another country for a few years then your opinion is worthless.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:North Koreans think their country is Ok, too. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Unless you've actually lived in another country for a few years then your opinion is worthless.

      That applies to the GP as well, dimbulb, who is apparently just as ignorant and anti-American as you are. What did I say that in any way criticized the people of any other country? Or are you just offended that an American has the right to say, "hey, I love my country, and I like living here"? Am I not allowed to enjoy any part of my existence, given that I live in the United States? Or is everyone on this planet supposed to hate us, including ourselves? What kind of swill are you peddling, anyway?

      And my opinion of my own country is hardly worthless: odds are I know a lot more about it than you do, Mr. Educated. I probably know a lot more about North Korea than your hypothetical North Korean will ever be allowed to know about my country. No, I've never been there, but I've had Korean friends over the years, so I understand some things. I understand that I probably don't want to live there. Hell, if you'd bothered to read my post (and others like it) you'll realize that I'm perfectly willing to openly discuss and acknowledge our faults, and the problems with our current government. Furthermore, as an American, I'm allowed to do that ... I can't speak for the North Korean you mentioned, but I suspect his openly criticizing his government would be unwise.

      Honestly, I'm not for censorship as a general rule, but there ought to be some standards. Dipsticks like you ought not to be allowed on this site ... you're irritating and serve no purpose.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:North Koreans think their country is Ok, too. by flewp · · Score: 1

      You say that "for the most part I enjoy my life here."

      Have you ever lived anywhere else? I've seen plenty of TV documentaries where people in countries like North Korea think the country is well run and a safe place to live.

      Unless you've actually lived in another country for a few years then your opinion is worthless.

      Uh, can you run that by me again? How is his opinion worthless? If his opinion is that he enjoys living somewhere, why does he have to try moving to another country to validate that opinion? I don't have to eat pork to know that I like steak.
      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
  110. "If you give me six lines written by... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" - Cardinal Richelieu.

    --
    No sig today...
  111. Friend's sanitized story of getting fined by shanen · · Score: 1

    I hope I don't say anything that compromises my friend's privacy, but his story is quite relevant to this topic... As he was going through security, he made some kind of non-serious comment about his laptop not being a bomb. He was pulled off the flight, wound up paying several thousand dollars in related costs--and my impression is that he mostly avoids business trips to America these days. His formerly very advanced English certainly seems to be deteriorating, I'm sorry to report.

    (And *NO*, I do *NOT* want to hop over and help with the /. meta-moderation that supports the broken moderation system. My observations are that /. is basically dying, mostly for a lack of humor, and the broken moderation system is my pick for the #1 reason.)

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  112. Re:Is this the United States or some banana republ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice joke, buddy. I mean, you surely couldn't be trying to imply that Europe is more insular than the US, right?

    Insular? I don't know. They seem to be about as ignorant as your average American, but a whole lot more arrogant about it.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/04/nhistory104.xml

    Have you ever been anywhere outside the States?

    Yeah, I lived in Europe for several years. But, you know,

  113. Re:secure in their persons, houses, papers, and ef by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

    Damn, and I almost started looking for the land equivalent of the international waters rule of: "You are under the laws of the country who's flag you fly".

  114. Nitroglycerine hand lotion by The+Cornishman · · Score: 1

    You really don't want to rub nitroglycerine on your skin - it's a vasodilator, and will cause you to have a worse headache than you got from that tequila concoction. The tequila... remember? Oh, I guess not.

    1. Re:Nitroglycerine hand lotion by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      maybe you mean vasoconstrictor? My wife takes vasodilators for migraines and they help?

    2. Re:Nitroglycerine hand lotion by The+Cornishman · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure I mean vasodilator. Ampoules of nitroglycerine in very small quantities are prescribed for patients with angina, as the vasodilation relieves the pain associated with restricted blood flow to the heart - the nitroglycerine goes under the tongue, where it is rapidly absorbed.

  115. Don't let them confiscate your laptop! by P1h3r1e3d13 · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the TSA's blog (http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/02/rumor-alert-laptops.html):

    TSA does not and will not confiscate laptops or other electronic devices at our checkpoints.... We will not ask for any password, access to any files or take the laptop from you for longer than it takes to determine if it contains a threat. Should anyone at a TSA checkpoint attempt to confiscate your laptop or gain your passwords or other information, please ask to see a supervisor or screening manager immediately.
    That's TSA policy folks.
    1. Re:Don't let them confiscate your laptop! by tkw954 · · Score: 1

      This isn't about the TSA, it's about Customs.

    2. Re:Don't let them confiscate your laptop! by P1h3r1e3d13 · · Score: 1

      Dang - you're right. Never mind.

  116. Re:different worlds by quintessentialk · · Score: 1

    Alright. I'll throw you a few bones here, about why our perspective might be different.

    First: I'm young (or at least think I am): 27. I didn't fly for the first time until after 9/11, so I have no idea what pre-9/11 security was like. I'm also, by personality, very patient in queues, which no doubt annoys all the drivers around me now that I've moved to New Jersey. I will say I like traveling by train much better, though, especially at the smaller stations that only have platforms and not terminals. Walk up. Train stops, within minutes of schedule. You get on. Seconds later, train starts moving. Very nice.

    Nine-eleven happened when I was in college, and at the time I got quite a bit worked up over the government's response. I'm still worked up about many parts of it, in particular the conflation of 9/11 and Iraq, and the president's use of the word 'crusade' in a public speech. I think kind of insensitivity and carelessness could and should get you fired from most jobs. The fear that the US would become some sort of soft-core police state never really materialized, though (at least on US soil). With the exception of the blogs (not credible) and a few nationally publicized stories, I haven't heard of actual, real-world people running afoul of post-9/11 bureaucracy, with one exception: foreign researchers studying in the US were having delays in their re-entry visas after visiting their homes on holiday. Don't get me wrong, that's very bad for America, but no was honestly surprised. My colleagues from Iran, Pakistan, and China chose to take their holiday here instead until the next year (when things were better straightened out).

    But I'm probably different from you in other ways as well. For one, I use my credit card for every purchase I make (excepting vending machines and monthly rent). Though I find it disturbing the amount of information they (the credit card companies) collect, the convenience far out-weighs that concern. For another, I work for a government contractor. I've already had to open my life to much more exposure than I would have initially thought myself willing. The experience and 'timeliness' of the process taught me though that the government is really too inefficient and apathetic to do anything with its information. I'm actually more concerned about the credit card companies and insurance companies, and they at least have a market incentive to keep my data private.

    What is freedom, though? Maybe I don't push the boundaries enough to run into the problems, and I'm just not being imaginative enough. I can travel anywhere I want in the US without anyone's permission. I can live anywhere I can afford the property, and work anywhere I am qualified. I can say or write whatever I want, especially on line. I don't have to pretend to like politicians. I can attend church or not. What freedom have I really lost?

  117. What is this fascination with airports? by quintessentialk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As I wondered on another thread: What is this fascination with airports? Why don't the terrorists just blow up a mall or grocery store somewhere? There'd be no security to speak of, no need for identification, and it would get people in a more 'everyday' environment, which is much more personal than flying (something many of us probably don't do every day, or even every year).

    1. Re:What is this fascination with airports? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      As I wondered on another thread: What is this fascination with airports? Why don't the terrorists just blow up a mall or grocery store somewhere? Same reason the monster under your bed can't get you when your head is under the covers.

      Look, just be afraid, don't ask questions, and let your rights evaporate. 'kay?
      --

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

    2. Re:What is this fascination with airports? by j_166 · · Score: 1

      Well, there are many reasons. For one thing, grocery stores in this country are heavily fractured by brand and location. So if the terrorists blew up say, an Acme in New York, the people who don't shop at Acme in New YOrk would probably be more likely to think, "Gee, that's unfortunate, good thing I'm safe because I shop at Giant Eagle in New Jersey" as opposed to "HOLY F**KING SHIT I CAN'T GO TO THE STORE THE TERRAISTS ARE BLOWING THEM UP!!!one!!1".

      Another reason would be that the economic damage done by messing with airports has more return on investment than that which would be done by blowing up a store.

      For a real life example of these two reasons, look at the shooter in that luxury store in, where was it, Omaha(?) before christmas. What effect did that have on people shopping in the rest of the country? Probably about zero.

    3. Re:What is this fascination with airports? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      look at the shooter in that luxury store in, where was it, Omaha(?) before christmas. What effect did that have on people shopping in the rest of the country? Probably about zero.

      How about shopping in Omaha? How about shopping in that very store, after the cleanup and such?

      A huge spike of sales business, some of which appears to have been "sympathy" shopping.

      The optimist in me wants to see this as "The terrorists only win if we let them."

      The realist in me notes, somewhat bitterly, that commerce trumps all in this nation.

      So I'm conflicted.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:What is this fascination with airports? by j_166 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but disrupting shopping in that one store, and perhaps even the whole of Omaha has nowhere near the effect on the economy as a whole that closing even one airport for a few hours does. Its simply a question of bang-for-your buck. I'm not saying it wouldn't be easier to attack grocery stores, just that they aren't very valuable as targets of terrorism.

      Hell, I was in a mall in my state only a day after the shooting in Omaha, and it was packed, if that demonstrates how afraid people were that they might get shot at the mall.

  118. Bush's men had to dump their computers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Bush family is known as the cleanest ship in the politics business. Did he order everyone to destroy their computers but not issue new ones?

  119. Remote Data Storage is the Answer to Privacy by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 2

    Examining / seizing laptops is nothing new - there have been numerous discussions on GFY.com (adult webmasters forum) over the years about people who got snared due to posessing various adult oriented text / images by Customs of various countries - not just the U.S., but also Canada and elsewhere.

    The safest course of action is to store data remotely whenever possible - with the internet, here and there makes no difference ... for documents / email, which is most often what people need on business, it's nearly just as easy to access that data from a secure remote server...

    Not 100% fool-proof, but remote data storage raises the bar quite a bit - greatly reduces the risk of problems with Customs ... they are more likely to let the laptop quickly pass-through, if all they find is a Windows default install with a few mundane documents in the document folder, etc.

    Ron

  120. Re:Nothing random by http · · Score: 2, Informative
    This has to be said explicitly rather than hinted at. That's an idiotic statement.

    "It is rational to consider future enemy capabilities and try to preempt them."
    You might get upset at me for holding a different opinion than you, and you might figure out how to weild a knife and become my enemy; is rational that I cut off both your hands right now? That should preempt you. How about because I might learn how to build a neutron bomb (I already know the math, but not the construction techniques), you break my lathe (fashioned primitively in my backyard) before I even start?

    It wasn't preemption, it was murder. Operation Iraqi Freedom scanned a whole lot better than Largest Act of War Ever Even Counting What We Threw At Bin Laden. The decision to invade Iraq was made with the knowledge that the Iraqi standing army posed no serious threat to anyone. Period. Don't take my word for it, take Colin Powell's.

    You bring up the weak Iraqi missile program, and then explain why it wouldn't have been needed to deliver `WMD'. Drop one letter grade right there. Perhaps you didn't know that the missle program existed mostly on the back of cocktail napkins after initial attempts to break the 150 km limit were discovered and destroyed, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/01/07/AR2005040204936_5.html. But you completely forgot to mention that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion, nor any long range missiles, and officials in both the White House and the Pentagon knew it.

    --
    If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
    3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
  121. You can still be polite by putaro · · Score: 1

    The simple fact is that there are very few terrorists. So, most searches are going to be performed on people who are not terrorists. You can be polite, professional and still get the job done. The TSA is simply unprofessional and rude.

  122. Re:Proprietary data by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Industrial espionage is a lot more widespread than people think. The Chinese are by far the worst offenders. I know several people who had their data stolen in this way. And yes, one time it happened in Europe.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  123. MOD parent UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hear, Hear...

    Refuse to attend conferences, conventions, seminars, workshops if you are invited.
    Tourism to the US - avoid at all costs. Inhospitable hosts get no guests.

    1. Re:MOD parent UP! by Tom · · Score: 1

      Refuse to attend conferences, conventions, seminars, workshops if you are invited. Been doing that for years. Ironically, one of the first workshops I was invited to was for some top-dog oil company managers, probably the same kind of people who put you all into this mess. :-)
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  124. Bush deceit and other complicity by evought · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was the perfect political opportunity. There was no down side. If WMD is found claim credit. If WMD is not found claim you were deceived.

    The Bush Administration deceived first, then tried to rationalize. Not the other way around. For deceit to work, it has to be hidden. That the deceit is coming out now is just a natural progression of history. I think part of the point is that Congress went along with the plan without doing any real fact checking, asking any tough questions, or really even discussing anything. They just made pretty speeches and signed on the dotted line. And this is exactly in line with what the GP is saying: folks in Congress saw no downside; they could just blame Bush either way. Whether the blame is *deserved* is irrelevant to *that* question; Congress had the opportunity to avoid the situation and are now jumping up and down about how it wasn't "their fault" (except for the ones still saying "Gee, what a nice day this is!".) It is their *job* to be suspicious and not write blank checks. If Bush fooled them, they failed that job.
  125. What i would do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is say no you can kiss my ass im not giving u my fuckin laptop. if they dont want to let me board i say fine. i sue em. and i get a REFUND from the airline. and i complain to everyone i see...and i use a different airport after that. and if that doesnt work i move to a fucking country that treats me like a fucking human being. godamn tsa what a big fucking waste of money ... oh wait thats the idea .... nevermind.

  126. Re:different worlds by evought · · Score: 1

    I think you are largely right. My experiences were not much different from yours, including having had to do government work and obtain a clearance, but I have a few years of extra perspective which make a world of difference. The US is not the Soviet Union yet, but the atmosphere has definitely changed, like a cold draft from a window. The number of people who are affected, from minor to major ways, is increasing slowly but steadily, and waiting for things to get bad before complaining or saying "I can deal with it" personally are not good plans. Bad systems, once in place, reinforce each other. More and more people making it clear that this is not the direction we need to be going in is a very good thing.

    For what it is worth, 9/11 was not as big a change as many people make it out to be. The Drug War really started a lot of the problems. 9/11 increased the pace of change and allowed some of it to be done more openly (people outright asking for it), but the trend was already there. I was actually surprised that 9/11 did not speed up the process more than it did. I am not in any way in favor of drugs, but the way we have gone about trying to eliminate them is asinine.

  127. Re:Proprietary data by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    You can protect yourself against hard drive mirroring by using strong encryption - even if they do mirror the hard drive, all they end up with is a lump of data that'd take them years to crack. However, the TSA ensures that nobody in their right mind will cross the border with encrypted data on the laptop. Thus you either need to transmit all the data via internet (which might not be entirely feasible if it's a lot of data and you don't have the time to wait for it to download) or mail it to the destination (meaning that you have much less control over it until it arrives).

    Of course the TSA is making doing business in the States a hassle, so they might reduce the volume of data carried in by foreigners simply by reducing the volume of foreigners coming in. After all, we can also fly out Americans to Europe, which doesn't put our data at the mercy of an opaque agency with a less than stellar reputation.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  128. no more gipsying around on a Greyhound pass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About 20 years ago, I spent three of the best summers of my life gipsying around the States, with pretty much only a Greyhound one month pass in my pocket. Didn't know where I was going in advance at all. It was great! I really loved the States then.

    These days I'm not even considering going there, even with the Dollar cheap as it is.

    Please Americans, wake up from your self induced nightmare, stop being afraid of your shadow, impeach Bush + cronies, reattach to the rest of the world, and start living again!
    Bart

  129. Cowards? by Grant_Watson · · Score: 1

    And the US got tired of being attacked by terrorists and having civilians (and military men and women) murdered by cowards.

    Regardless of your view of foreign policy, I've never really understood this use of the word "coward." Someone who blows himself up to (unjustly) kill his enemy is a murderer, no doubt, but how is dying to achieve your aim cowardly?

    1. Re:Cowards? by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Regardless of your view of foreign policy, I've never really understood this use of the word "coward." Someone who blows himself up to (unjustly) kill his enemy is a murderer, no doubt, but how is dying to achieve your aim cowardly?

      Someone who blows himself up excuses himself from punishment by those he hurts. That is cowardly. Of course, in the end those who do that burn in hell but it would still be nice to punish them on Earth first.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  130. Option 3 by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    Since TFA is a dup, I'll just post a link to my original comment on the matter: write your congresscritters!

    Although, however incensed we may be that the U.S. is doing it, we still face the potential problem of encountering the same sort of intrusive searches going into other countries, particularly as U.S. allies follow our lead. As for me, I'm locking my phone, etc., if I travel in the U.S. by public conveyance. If I'm asked to unlock it, I'll ask for a warrant. (This is probably an empty boast, since I have no such travel plans anytime in the foreseeable future.)

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  131. This has gone too far... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was questioned by DHS for hours at Las Vegas airport. They wanted to check my hard disk, they asked me a whole bunch of weird questions (highlight being 'were you baptised' - I'm English BTW).

    I'm kind of wishing now, having read a few comments on here about making a stand, I'd said something to the guy akin to 'those who give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety will gain neither and lose both'.

  132. TIme to re-read Franz Kafka. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You need to educate yourselves people.

    Send a copy of the complete works of Kafka to the 3 US presidential candidates still in the race. Not that I hope they will understand the message (when you hear McCain or Clinton pathetic excuses for their support of a war that has killed an maimed who knows how many thousands of people, you know there is no hope), but I don't know, I like poetic irony in the face of madness....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  133. Yes. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    The US and UK messed up their countries for the best part of 100 years.

    The US and UK (and France on occasions) sided with dictators, despots and other nocive types in order to protect short term interests.

    What is the moral rationale of keep befriending countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? What is the reason for the paranoid fear of Iran (at least they have some kind of elections)?

    THe US have destroyed Iraq over false pretenses and you pretend that the Muslims in the world have no reason to be angry.

    Honestly ....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Yes. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      THe US have destroyed Iraq over false pretenses and you pretend that the Muslims in the world have no reason to be angry.

      I'm sure they have dozens of reasons to be angry, but you're missing my point: being angry *does not justify murder*. Lots of people are angry about lots of things, hell I'm angry at about a dozen things right now, but I'm not strapping a bomb around myself and going into a mall.

      They have a reason to be angry, fine. But that does not justify murder. Period.

    2. Re:Yes. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "They have a reason to be angry, fine. But that does not justify murder. Period."

      yah! everyone knows War is what justifies murder.

      Also, just because your opponent is superior militarily and financially, doesn't give you the right to fight back in any successful manner available to you...

  134. Protests in the News by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    I was at a couple of anti-war protests in Boston. One made the news, but they misrepresented the number of people there. Otherwise, the press had completely ignored the protests. The press generally refers to protests as if it is two or three people waving incoherent signs.

    I remember the anti-anti-war protestors, screaming obscenities at me, and calling me things like traitor, freak, pussy, and hippie. Some people are just confused.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  135. That is all acording to you. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I prefer to believe Hans Blix, the chap that was actually doing the work, have this for starters: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/11/iraq.usa

    It is undeniable that he didn't find anything and that the US (an their lackeys, the shameful Tony Blair and lest not forget, the laughable Jose Maria Aznar) wanted to use the UN as their rubber stamp.

    If the US is not prepared to accept UN resolutions when they don't conform to your wishes, why don't you get the heck out of the UN? You are already out of several UN's organizations like UNESCO for the most cavalier of reasons, don't recognize the International Court of Justice (where hopefully, one day, irresponsible individuals like Bush and Blair will one day face justice. Unlikely, utopic, but most necessary heal the wounds of the thousands or Iraqi people dead for no discernible reason whatsoever) and in general think you are exceptional and are not prepared to play ball.

    Well, make it official, most of the world is fed up with this, so we can as well officialize what is obvious fact.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  136. Hussein had no connections to terrrorism. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Your own fucking Congress has ruled about that one...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Hussein had no connections to terrrorism. by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      "Hussein had no connections to terrrorism."

      Your own fucking Congress has ruled about that one...


      Wtong. He paid for suicide bombers, made anPR event of the payments to families. He sheltered hijackers who murdered US citizens. He operated training camps. You have been fooled by political spin than that terrorist means al-qaeda, it does not. There are many branches on the terrorist family tree and Saddam nurtured some of them.

  137. I have been in the US many times. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    And the perception of the original poster is right on the money. I stopped going when the invasive, abusive, demaning "security" measures started to get out of hand. In all other countries I visit I am welcomed. Even Vietnam or Indonesia in the times of the dictatorship. Nothing can equal the humiliating treatment you can receive in an US airport.

    The US basks in their self perceived exceptionallity without realizing the colossal contradictions that the political system and monumental political apathy are ushering into the normal people.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  138. Then lets stand there and do nothing. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    That will solve the problem pretty quickly.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  139. Yours is among the dumbest statements posted here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hussein had no connections to terrrorism"

    Hussein made the entire populace of Iraq live in terror.

    He is the DEFINITION of a terrorist. The fact that he isn't the type of terrorist you're familiar with changes nothing, and doesn't make your claim less wrong.

    "Your own fucking Congress has ruled about that one..."

    Nope. You might want to check on what they actually ruled (and since when does a congressional ruling equal reality? You'd have to be pretty naive to think that was true) because it's not what you claim. Your ignorance is showing.

    Not only did you fail, you failed twice in two sentences.

  140. One example: Canada and Mexicans by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    As a Mexican I can go to Canada without applying for a visa.

    In order to go to the US I have to go the the US consulate, be subjected to idiotic questioning about my motivations for going, and after wasting all day I may be denied entry without any possible redress (a relative that needed to go in order to help with funeral arrangements of a relative of hers, wasn't allowed in. The reason is that she hasn't hold a job for many years. So stay at home mums, you are out of luck).

    Then assuming I get a visa, I will still be harassed in the US airport *even if I am just going in fucking transit*. Authorities in US airports have the verb to ask me where I am going (well duh, you should know that already) and they insist to ask particulars about my whereabouts in bloody Mexico! To which I of course reply with a sharp inquiry about since when the Mexican government handed control of our borders and our internal affairs to US authorities.

    And all this without even starting about the rampant racialism in daily US life, where if you are walking in the part of town where "Mexicans are not supposed to be" you can get questioned by police for the grave crime of walking.

    So again tell me, why should I visit the US? Instead I am going to Canada now, which seems to be a friendly and interesting place that actually has sane immigration policies in place.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  141. You should know better. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Burning tires does little. You have some neighbors very active in that department and they are still in deep shit.

    Political organization is the key, blogging and writing about the state of affairs is part of the same coin as demonstrations, but demonstrations by themselves change nothing.

    In the UK 1 million people demonstrated against the Iraq war. That made no difference whatsoever.

    When the time came to vote, people put the same liar back in power, because the economy was good, never mind all the dead people killed with our tax money. Money triumphs over decency, unless there are people out there that make sure you are aware you are helping to kill innocent people if you vote for your own convenience in mind exclusively.

    A properly organized political opposition would have been more important than the biggest of demonstrations.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.