Slashdot Mirror
TSA Subpoenas Bloggers Over New Security Directive
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that TSA special agents have served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott demanding that they reveal who leaked a TSA directive outlining new screening measures that went into effect the same day as the Detroit airliner incident. Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents for about three hours and was forced to hand over his laptop computer after the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn't cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo outlining new security measures that would be apparent to the traveling public. 'It literally showed up in my box,' Frischling told The Associated Press. 'I do not know who it came from.' Frischling says he provided the agents a signed statement to that effect. The leaked directive included measures such as screening at boarding gates, patting down the upper legs and torso, physically inspecting all travelers' belongings, looking carefully at syringes with powders and liquids, requiring that passengers remain in their seats one hour before landing, and disabling all onboard communications systems, including what is provided by the airline. In a December 29 posting on his blog, Elliott said he had told the TSA agents at his house that he would call his lawyer and get back to them."
It's not classified information. It's just called "sensitive" information under 49 CFR 1520. That's a federal regulation, not a criminal law, and it only applies to persons authorized to receive the information, not to the general public. If the TSA finds the authorized person who is the source of the leak, they can charge them a civil penalty, but a non-authorized recipient has no obligation to keep the material confidential.
There are criminal penalties associated with actual classified information, but they don't apply here. Homeland Security has the authority to create classified documents, but then they have to comply with all the requirements of accountability, marking, numbered copies, copying restrictions, approved containers, encrypted transmissions, burn bags, and security clearances. They can't send something to every airline gate agent and baggage handler and call it "classified", because those people aren't cleared for classified information.
Okay, this will be quick-n-dirty:
Please explain, logically, how we can determine issues of consent and age
It's a well known (scientific!) fact that children grow and learn. At some point, they stop growing, and, well, slow down in learning. At that point, they become adults. Children cannot consent. Adults can.
And then explain, using logic, why it is anyone's business if I have a web footed duck baby because I like porking my sister.
Pollution of the gene pool is bad. Producing 'tarded kids that will put unnecessary stress on the educational, medical and social systems is bad.
Then, using science, perhaps you could give some evidence that a web footed duck baby is a necessary consequence of sister-porking.
The inbreeding is computed as a percentage of chances for two alleles to be identical by descent. This percentage is called "inbreeding coefficient". There are several methods to compute this percentage, the two main ways are the path method[9] [1]
and the tabular method[10] [2] .[unreliable source?]
Typical inbreeding percentages are as follows:[dubious – discuss]
* Father/daughter – mother/son – brother/sister 25%
* Half-brother/half-sister 12.5%
* Uncle/niece – aunt/nephew 12.5%
* Double first cousins 12.5%
* Half-uncle/niece 6.25%
* First cousins 6.25%
* First cousins once removed - half-first cousins 3.125%
* Second cousins - first cousins twice removed 1.5625%
(from wikipedia)