TSA Subpoenas Bloggers Over New Security Directive

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TSA Subpoenas Bloggers Over New Security Directive

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday December 31, 2009 @05:36AM from the travel-by-camel dept.

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."

74 of 379 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Because obscurity... by DotNM · 2009-12-31 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

... is the best security.

--
There's no place like localhost
1. Re:Because obscurity... by onionman · 2009-12-31 05:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except that it wouldn't be obscure for long... it only takes a single blogger getting run through the security process while trying to board for the whole "secret new screening procedure" to become completely known.
  To paraphrase Bruce Schneier, it seems like the DHS/TSA is now engaging in security meta-theater so that they can demonstrate how oh-so-very-important the security theater is.
2. Re:Because obscurity... by oldspewey · 2009-12-31 05:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I thought the next phase was going to involve banning whatever colour pants it was that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was wearing on that flight. I mean, clearly people wearing the same colour pants as Abdulmutallab represent a similar danger right?
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
3. Re:Because obscurity... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 06:37 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I can't wait to watch the ruckus when fathers have to stand and watch their underage teenage daughters groped and molested by TSA agents with their shiny blue gloves. This is moving into surreal nightmare mode....
4. Re:Because obscurity... by zippthorne · 2009-12-31 06:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I fail to see how they could have kept "requiring passengers to stay in their seats one hour before landing" secret for any length of time.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
5. Re:Because obscurity... by tapanitarvainen · 2009-12-31 06:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  [...] I doubt a majority of totally informed people would act against a minority in a punitive way, as this would leave each individual open to punitive acts from a different majority.
  You underestimate the shortsightedness of people. Those in a majority hardly ever stop to think they might be in a minority at a later date - and when they do, it just encourages them to (ab)use their majority power while it lasts.
6. Re:Because obscurity... by HeronBlademaster · 2009-12-31 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I disagree. Let's say they had kept secret the plan to require passengers to stay seated for the last hour of flight. Let's also assume a terrorist had planned an attack that requires getting out of his seat during the last hour of flight, and the planned attack was to occur on the first flight on which the new requirement was implemented.
  The flight crew is surely going to tell the passengers the new rule before it comes into effect, so that they can use the toilet before the last hour of flight; worst case (from the terrorist's point of view) he puts his plan into motion with an hour and five minutes to go.
  How does keeping this sort of thing secret beforehand increase security at all? Chances are very, very good that terrorists are going to know about any new rules almost immediately after they're implemented, negating any benefit gained by the secret implementation of those rules.
  Do you have a counter-example where an airline security procedure must be kept secret before implementation in order for it to remain effective after implementation?
7. Re:Because obscurity... by IgnoramusMaximus · 2009-12-31 08:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your argument falls apart because of wholly baseless assumptions. In fact the rule of both "majority" or "minority" are equally nonsensical. What matters is logic, reason and science. Two apples added to another two apples make four apples irrespective if the person adding them together is the King or the mud-covered peasant, the President or his would-be assassin, the Glorious Leader of One Party or a partisan of the Resistance in a forest, a media celebrity or a leper, a member of the vast self-righteous majority or a rag-clad member of the persecuted outcast minority.
  And this is why you will find all the politicians always blather about "democracy" or "the will of the people": they abhor logic, knowing that it would deprive them of their power to manipulate the weak-minded masses in order so that perversions such as the rule of a "majority" or a "minority" can be put in place against all reason.
8. Re:Because obscurity... by causality · 2009-12-31 08:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You are missing the point. They were trying to keep something a secret, and then someone sworn to keep that secret, leaked it. That is absolutely a cause for concern.
  Another point is that it served no real purpose to keep this a secret anyway. Someone "sworn to keep the secret" realized this and acted accordingly instead of being a mindless drone. This made TSA look bad, it made them lose face, and now they want to get the visceral satisfaction of nailing the person who did it. That's about all there is to see here.
  
  If the leaking of this information did any actual damage, or had a hope of remaining secret once implemented, then you'd have a case that GP is missing a point.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
9. Re:Because obscurity... by Evets · 2009-12-31 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're missing the point. This isn't about leaking a secret, it's about intimidation and suppression of freedom.
10. Re:Because obscurity... by Chyeld · 2009-12-31 08:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Logic is the answer only to questions of fact.
  Logic does not answer questions of morality.
  Logic does not answer questions of ethics.
  Logic does not answer questions of aesthetics.
  How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" for two men to lie together?
  How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" to deprive another of freedom?
  How many apples must be added together to determine if something is "Porn" or "Art". And how many more to determine if there is an actual difference?
  To date, the only way people have found a way to 'answer' those questions that logic can not answer is to rely on someone's authority. Be that the authority of the majority or minority, the "rule" of any is seen as the only way for more than two people to live in this world without being constantly at each others throats.
11. Re:Because obscurity... by tapanitarvainen · 2009-12-31 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There's more to democracy than simple "majority rules". In particular, there usually is and IMHO needs to be some mechanisms for slowing down too drastic changes, if only to force people to think again what it actually is they want. In particular rules for changing constitution are usually written with that in mind, but also various rights in constitutions themselves strive to make it hard to do too much damage too quickly, even if transient majority so wants. Just about everything in the US Bill of Rights will do as an example, but some (even limited) possibility of anonymity is also important for that reason.
  It is not a binary choice between majority and minority rules. It can and should be set up so that majority has more power, but not unlimited, instant power. If the majority wants something bad enough and long enough, they'll get it, sure. But not instantly, and the smaller the majority, the harder it should be to make drastic changes.
  "Majority rule" should mean majority over some non-trivial period of time - and in practice it always does, partly or perhaps even primarily because various technical reasons necessarily delay execution of all decisions, by design or by accident. And more drastic changes should and do require more time. That also allows the minority a better change to persuade others of their viewpoint - also IMHO an essential feature of democracy.
12. Re:Because obscurity... by Mr.+Freeman · 2009-12-31 09:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Methinks perhaps a better idea would have been to leak it to wikieaks, rather than a US citizen that could be arrested and possibly tortured (gotta love that "patriot" act) into giving up the information. Even if the US journalist or blogger had no desire to reveal his source (as is the case here), the government seems to think that it has the right to force them to.
  
  This is a lesson. Only leak things to places that aren't easily within the US's reach.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
13. Re:Because obscurity... by IgnoramusMaximus · 2009-12-31 09:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Logic does not answer questions of morality.
  
  Of course it does. It is just that you (and a lot of other people) really, really do not like the answers.
  
  Logic does not answer questions of ethics.
  
  See above.
  
  Logic does not answer questions of aesthetics.
  
  True, but then again aesthetics has no place in governance, does it now?
  
  How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" for two men to lie together?
  
  Non sequitur. Sexual conduct is a natural function of human bodies, sexuality is hard-wired into human brains by countless millions of years of evolution and subject to genetic and environmental variations and you nor the frothing-at-the-snout mob nor the power-hungry-lynch-mob-whipping-up-politicians nor the cracked-up religious zealots of the minute have any "moral" business in dictating who can lie together with whom.
  The only concerns with sex are logical, i.e. dealing with incestuous activities which are likely to result in genetically damaged progeny and the issues of consent and age.
  The rest is just another unreasoning, idiotic, rabid, woo-woo of the minute, the only purpose of which is for some individuals to control and persecute all the others.
  
  How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" to deprive another of freedom?
  
  Non sequitur. Freedom (depending on its definition) is a logical concept which can be analyzed logically, although it is unlikely that arithmetic is applicable in this case.
  
  How many apples must be added together to determine if something is "Porn" or "Art". And how many more to determine if there is an actual difference?
  
  As I indicated, art has no meaning in governance and you, nor anyone else, has any business deciding what can or cannot be seen by others.
  
  To date, the only way people have found a way to 'answer' those questions that logic can not answer is to rely on someone's authority.
  
  Bullshit. People intentionally discarded the answers offered by logic and reason because they did not like them, instead replacing them with arbitrary "authority", for it suited their various malicious intents much better. Following which they enforced this "authority" (usually by means rather violent) onto all who did not subscribe to it.
  
  Be that the authority of the majority or minority, the "rule" of any is seen as the only way for more than two people to live in this world without being constantly at each others throats.
  
  That is the reasoning of every dick-wad King, Emperor, Duke, Baron, Generalissimo, Glorious Leader and all smaller fish politicians, all casting themselves as our "protectors", and all we have to do is to defer to their "authority" to be "protected" against each other.
  And while in practice it "works" for them, because majority of humanity are indeed thoughtless animals who abhor all reason and logic, it does not change the fact that the only sane rules by which to establish enlightened society are those very rules that are so contemptible to you: logic, reason science and the like.
14. Re:Because obscurity... by Casualposter · 2009-12-31 10:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They are wasting our time and money on this obviously stupid stuff and because it is so stupid, they slap "super secret" on it. Just because something is "secret" does not mean that it is in the best interest of the public to not know about it. The real national security issue is that some jackass got on a plane with a bomb in Nigeria, and then made it through Amsterdam and all the way to Detroit before trying to blow up the plane. Making passengers sit still with their hands in the air for the last hour of a 12 hour flight doesn't address how the bomb got on the flight to Detroit in the first place. The TSA has a tough job: keep the bombs off the planes without making air travel so odious that it doesn't work. But when the TSA does something like this proposal - something so obviously not related to fixing the actual problem, they want it to be secret because everyone will think, and rightfully so, that Colonel Klink and Sergeant Shultz of Hogan's Heros are running airport security.
  To me, this leak falls under the whistleblower laws. This type of stupidity is negligent.
  But of course, the TSA thinks that all of its requirements and lists must be secret because the "Bad Guys" will get through much easier if things are known. But then, secret laws and secret rules with brutal enforcement are fundamentally unfair and ineffective. Far too easy to catch the ignorantly innocent rather than the nefarious. The TSA has a history or trying to hide their rules and go with arbitrary requirements, and by golly they don't want ANYONE to talk about it.
  
  --
  Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
15. Re:Because obscurity... by Chyeld · 2009-12-31 10:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" for two men to lie together?
  Non sequitur. Sexual conduct is a natural function of human bodies, sexuality is hard-wired into human brains by countless millions of years of evolution and subject to genetic and environmental variations and you nor the frothing-at-the-snout mob nor the power-hungry-lynch-mob-whipping-up-politicians nor the cracked-up religious zealots of the minute have any "moral" business in dictating who can lie together with whom.
  
  I look forward to your logical proof of your statements especially RE:Who has what right to demand what of whom.
  However so far all you've stated in response to this and the other questions I presented are opinions, not facts.
  The fact is there is no factual definition of who has what rights in this world. You can just as easily argue logically that all men are free as you can that dominance is a natural result of life and thus the stronger should naturally and logically rule the weaker. It depends solely on the opinions/assumptions you begin your argument on.
  The fact is there are no factual definitions to how far we must go to 'protect someone from themselves' or even 'to protect the public'. You can just as easily argue that people should be allowed to off themselves at a whim as you can argue that we should all be forced to live in monitored cells to prevent any impure thoughts or actions to corrupt us.
  The fact is that logic itself is useless without starting with a foundation of pre-existing assumptions (axioms), things which can not be proven using the logic based upon them, as by definition any attempt do so would result in a tautology. Even something as simple as the math you presented in your opening argument is bound by this, for math is an axiomatic system.
  What matters in the end is how consistent are the axioms we base out world view on. Do we claim to believe that all men should be free while keeping slaves? Do we count men and women as equal while denying women the ability to do the same things as men? Do we claim to follow a higher being while simultaneously ignoring the commandments attributed to said being?
  In this, you have a point. People are far more willing to live with a conflicting set of axioms than to actually confront said conflicts and resolve them. But that has nothing to do with mindlessness or lack of intelligence and in fact, the people I've known in life who've exhibited the greatest amount of cognitive dissonance in their life were all highly intelligent, individualized people who simply weren't willing to give up believing in a set group of axioms no matter how much it conflicted with the rest of their lives and the reality as they knew it.
  In fact, I would go so far as to postulate that the better one is able to comprehend the world around them, the more likely they are to be subject to cognitive dissonance as their ability to form a concrete framework describing their understanding is outpaced by it.
16. Re:Because obscurity... by HeronBlademaster · 2009-12-31 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  We are talking about information that WILL become public, and in this case a specific date chosen and it wasnt even going to be that far in the future.
  And given that the information wasn't sensitive in the first place, it shouldn't have been secret at all. As GP said, someone realized this and leaked it. I see no cause for concern here (from the "OMG LEAKS" perspective), I only see cause for concern about the TSA itself.
17. Re:Because obscurity... by IgnoramusMaximus · 2009-12-31 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Then sir, I respectfully submit that it is time for you to remove yourself from the discussion. As so far your attempts at logic have mostly been blatantly illogical.
  
  For them to be illogical, it should be easy for you to demonstrate the errors. You have not done so. Instead, what you are stating is simply "I dislike your reasoning and so I am going to pretend it is illogical". A standard operating procedure of all those who prefer to employ the logical fallacy called "an appeal to authority" to replace logic itself in their "arguments".
18. Re:Because obscurity... by IgnoramusMaximus · 2009-12-31 11:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Your biggest problem here is that you're assuming a base desirable (malformed babies are bad)
  
  No, that is not a base of my chain of reasoning, the base and the starting point is the purpose of society (and consequently its governance). "malformed babies are bad" is a logical conclusion predicated upon the base assumption of the purpose of the society they get born into (i.e. for individuals in a society to be better off then being on their own) combined with knowledge of medical science. It is arguably many steps removed from the initial step.
  
  Humans depend on leadership to govern and guide them.
  
  That is a sweeping (and quite unsubstantiated) generalization. The objective assessment is that some humans are incapable of their own decision-making and thus depend on "authority".
  
  Logic cannot tell you what is best, cold reason cannot show you what will make society function properly. People are inherently irrational and solutions are often counter-intuitive (or illogical, if you will).
  
  That is a quite different kettle of fish. What I was discussing was a sane, rational society. Arguably a large proportion of humanity in general is not rational or even sane. Ergo it is quite logical that the only forms of governance that "work" for them are a-few-slices-short-of-a-loaf kind and the general consensus (and one which you seem to endorse) is that it is "too bad" for the rest of us who are not so close to sheep in their mental state.
  But for any progress to be achieved one has to realize that in the long run that is a recipe for disaster. There is only so much technological progress a medieval mindset can handle - for proof see also under "Al Qaeda" and 9/11. Now imagine the same with nanotech.
19. Re:Because obscurity... by IgnoramusMaximus · 2009-12-31 12:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I look forward to your logical proof of your statements especially RE:Who has what right to demand what of whom.
  As I mentioned to others here, the starting point of the arguments is with the purpose of society (and thus its governance). Ostensibly the only rational reason to participate is if by participation one can be better off then otherwise. Ergo the societal rules have to be formulated so that all those who are to participate must be better off then otherwise. The rest of the logical argument naturally evolves from here.
  
  However so far all you've stated in response to this and the other questions I presented are opinions, not facts.
  How so?
  
  The fact is there is no factual definition of who has what rights in this world.
  "Rights" are a consequence of societal models employed. However if you start your chain of reasoning at the point I indicated, which is the only logical place to begin, one arrives on a very similar set of "rights" irrespective of models chosen, as long as logical arguments are followed. This is why many different governance models all have many commonalities revolving around the definition of these "rights".
  
  You can just as easily argue logically that all men are free as you can that dominance is a natural result of life and thus the stronger should naturally and logically rule the weaker. It depends solely on the opinions/assumptions you begin your argument on.
  Irrelevant. Such arguments cease to have any meaning as soon as the concept of "society" is introduced, which replaces entirely the context of a lone individual in the "wild".
  
  The fact is there are no factual definitions to how far we must go to 'protect someone from themselves' or even 'to protect the public'.
  Huh? You are confused. There is no "factual definition" as to "how far" because no such thing is possible. This however does not prevent one from arriving at logical conclusions as to rational actions that lead to an increase of the level of "protection" of some individuals from others (or themselves). What is important here, and what is keeping your confused, is the definition of "protection". And that definition can be arrived at logically, i.e. protection from physical harm ... as opposed from protection from some "moral panic".
  
  The fact is that logic itself is useless without starting with a foundation of pre-existing assumptions (axioms), things which can not be proven using the logic based upon them, as by definition any attempt do so would result in a tautology. Even something as simple as the math you presented in your opening argument is bound by this, for math is an axiomatic system.
  True. Fortunately we have the axioms to work with, like "the purpose of society". The rest follows from there. And while true, such a system has no opinion on "how many angels one can fit at the tip of a pin" and the resulting "morality" and other medieval nonsense, I posit that it is the only logical way to move forward.
  
  What matters in the end is how consistent are the axioms we base out world view on. Do we claim to believe that all men should be free while keeping slaves? Do we count men and women as equal while denying women the ability to do the same things as men? Do we claim to follow a higher being while simultaneously ignoring the commandments attributed to said being?
  All of these are easily answered by answering the initial question: "what is the purpose of society". The answer (axiomatic arguably) is that its purpose is to make all of its members better off then if they were on their own. The rest follows. Slavery, unless consensual, is clearly contradictory. Gender equality (with provisions for maternity) is also an easy deduction. Religion on the other hand is just (usually mal
20. Re:Because obscurity... by IgnoramusMaximus · 2009-12-31 12:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Are you claiming science is perfect, and that the people practicing it, practice it perfectly?
  
  Of course not. This however does not change the fact that science is the best tool for the job, by far. It is self-correcting (although sometimes slowly), verifiable and logical. None of the other "methods" come close.
  
  You seem to hold an intense desire to do away with all gray areas. Unfortunately, it is all gray.
  
  No, it is not. While it is true that many questions humans pose cannot be answered in the binary fashion or even offered satisfactory scientific answers, all the basic ones which pertain to governance and society can be. Saying that "it is all gray" is a grand cop-out and oversimplification.
  
  You can never get everyone to agree on a black and white world view, even using science, logic and reason.
  
  Since the "black and white" analogy is not universally applicable, it is of little wonder that logic cannot offer you help in making this flawed analogy unconditional.
  
  Therefore, science, logic, and reason are not the ultimate answer to societal problems.
  
  Non sequitur. Consider however what is the alternative: societies based on idiocy, superstition, assorted woo-woos designed to elevate some group of their peddlers over others, rabid animalistic tendencies, etc and so on. Everything but science, logic and reason. I for one want nothing to do with such a "society" (although "a pack of rabid animals" would be a much more apt).
21. Re:Because obscurity... by IgnoramusMaximus · 2009-12-31 13:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You make several assumptions and provide nothing to back them up with. Using this argument it would be just as easy to argue that slavery is just, for the owner betters the life of the slave.
  Clearly not from the point of view of the slave, nor from any external objective point of view. Unless you can demonstrate that some small material considerations compensate for the lack of free will that is. I am looking forward to that argument!
  
  And you, once again, fail to show any work (as the school teacher might say) and simply claim the rest of your proof follows naturally.
  As the point above demonstrates, I admit that assumed that the patently obvious does not need to be explained. Furthermore, a complete, in-detail step-by-step reasoning of all arguments would fill whole books, not mere off-hand Slashdot posts. Here I can afford but a most coarse of outlines.
  
  What right do you have to 'protect' anyone from physical harm? From whence does this right flow and how is it defined?
  From the initial point: the purpose of society. If one participates, the obvious and logical consequence of such a choice is that the society is to protect its members from harm. Otherwise there is very little point in being part to such a scheme, no? As to the specific definition, the rudimentary basics are "protection from unwanted physical harm" (i.e. you are welcome to bash yourself on the head with a hammer as long as you do not expect the society to come to your rescue afterwards). Etc and so on (and no I am not inclined to a 30-page dissertation on every point just because you asked).
  
  How do you decide what is physical harm?
  You are kidding, right? Any harm to our body (as opposed to our psyche) is called "physical harm".
  
  If wish to pierce my ears, should this be prevented? How about my nipples? My genitals? If I choose to split my tongue? What if I choose to insert titanium knobs under my skin? What if I choose to drink? Smoke tobacco? Smoke pot? Shoot heroin? What if I cut myself? Refuse to eat? What if I have a curable but deadly if untreated disease and refuse treatments?
  Knock yourself out. As long as you do not come running for communal help afterwards. A society can only prevent harm that is preventable, i.e. harm that you wish (or can be deduced wishing if you are incommunicado) to be staved off. If you are on the other hand into poking your own eyes out... who are we to stop you? The only thing a society can offer is an assistance in case of a suspected mental illness, but that can only work if you are willing to accept it. Forcing treatment is only justifiable if you are trying to harm others and that is to balance their rights against yours.
  
  What if I touch myself in inappropriate places?
  None of society's business.
  
  If I engage in risky sexual behavior?
  Risky how?
  
  What if I have sexual relations with someone with a known STD?
  That would depend if you knew about it. If you did, see the point about poking your own eyes out.
  
  What if I hang out with a 'bad boy'? What if I hang out with a gang? What if I hang out with a group of people known to commit violent felonies? What if I hang out with people who think strapping a bomb on themselves and walking into a mall of crowded people and exploding is an ethical, moral, and reasonable way to make a social statement?
  As long as you actually do not explode or assist in making a bomb, at which point you cross the line into violating rights of others.
  
  ... your failure to even know what cognitive dissonance is or realize that everyone suffers from it
  Cognitive dissonance is a mental disorder. Not everyone suffer
22. Re:Because obscurity... by Mr2001 · 2009-12-31 18:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  There are a couple serious problems with this approach.
  1. Not everyone "stops growing" at the same age. How do you determine whether or not someone has reached that point yet, using nothing but pure logic?
  If you have a good answer that can be practically implemented, then I'd honestly love to hear it. I personally oppose age-based laws as a matter of principle, because I believe discriminating against someone because of the specific number of times they've orbited the sun is every bit as unfair as discriminating based on the color of their skin. But the alternatives I've heard are far from perfect. I think they'd still be better than age-based laws, but I accept that they'd involve a lot more false positives, which is fine with me - that's a matter of priorities (I think giving young people freedom is more valuable than protecting them from the consequences of their own choices), not logic.
  2. "Children cannot consent. Adults can" is an awfully simplistic and glib way to talk about it. Children can and do consent to things every day: for example, no one seriously argues that a 10 year old can't make an informed decision between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. What people claim is that children lack the capacity to make informed decisions about some things which have particularly dangerous or permanent consequences, or which require some (vaguely defined) sort of life experience or "emotional maturity" to be truly informed.
  There is no "consent" section of the brain that suddenly comes online on a person's 16th or 18th birthday. There is no bright line between "child" and "adult" at a biological level. There is no scientific consensus, let alone logical proof, as to what physical capacity a person needs to make informed decisions, or how to measure that capacity, or even at what age that capacity tends to arise (see the variation in ages of consent across the US and around the world). Setting a policy here requires more than just logic.
  
  --
  Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Fuck George Bush! by Vinegar+Joe · 2009-12-31 05:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

When will Obama be inaugurated?

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
1. Re:Fuck George Bush! by Darkness404 · 2009-12-31 06:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What are you talking about? Rights are something that it is harder to take away than to add. How many more freedoms do we have now that Obama is president? Zero. How many freedoms have been taken away? Lets see here... Obama wants to eliminate economic freedom of choice in the health care plan (I should have the right to choose my health care plan, be it an expensive plan, or I also have the right to have no health care), eliminate various freedoms when traveling, and now this and other stories which seek to eliminate freedom of expression.
  
  Obama is also held back by the democrats, the "lesser evil" party.
  
  Yeah, because we all know that democrats aren't hostile at all to a free economy, the second amendment, and freedom of expression.... I think I'm with the creators of South Park when they said "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals".
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:Fuck George Bush! by wizardforce · 2009-12-31 06:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well the problem is that we aren't "climbing out of this mess" if anything, things are getting worse. The problem is that people naively thought that electin Obama would improve things. The truth is that the government does what the people allow it to do. Bush was a warning sign that the checks and balances that were supposed to restrain the federal governments' power are essentially destroyed. The conditions that allowed Bush to frak up this country as bad as he did still exist. Now is it any wonder why the "change we can believe in" didn't happen as people believed it would?
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
3. Re:Fuck George Bush! by zippthorne · 2009-12-31 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm really not sure what it's going to take to get the country to realize that governing doesn't have to be an enemy of liberty.
  It will take nothing more than a single example in all of history where governing and liberty weren't at odds.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
4. Re:Fuck George Bush! by RingDev · 2009-12-31 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Even if the health care bill passes you will still have the right to choose any form of insurance (or to forgo insurance all together) you wish.
  The bill largely does nothing for the vast majority of Americans. If you have insurance, you will continue to have insurance. If you don't have insurance, you can either get insurance through a traditional provider, get insurance through the newly created federal market (which doesn't include a public option), or you can pay the monitory fine for going with out insurance (dependent on income level, last I heard it was something like $95/year for families on the low end of middle class).
  
  Yeah, because we all know that democrats aren't hostile at all to a free economy, the second amendment, and freedom of expression....
  1) The "free economy" is a great theory. But in reality pure capitalism is every bit the same failure that pure communism is. There are valuable lessons we have learned from each which must be utilized to produce a bright future with the citizens of the US enjoying a healthy quality of life. Looking to accept the best parts of capitalism and prune the worst parts is hardly a negative quality, IMO. And defending either with out considering their short comings in the real world is purely silly.
  2) I would argue this one. The whole reason for the 2nd amendment is to allow for the citizens of the country to have the power to overthrow the government at such a point in time that it no longer serves the people. But please tell me, what good does a fully automatic Uzi do you when you are faced with the might of the US Military? There is no amount guns that you as an individual can posses that will allow you to put up any form of meaningful resistance if the US Government decided that you were a risk. So at this point, the 2nd amendment rings hollow. And it's not for the liberal's trying to get guns off the streets, it's for the conservatives who believe that feeding the military-industrial complex is in the country's best interest.
  3) I'm really not sure on why you would think that the conservatives are better off than the liberals for freedom of expression. Sure, there are a few whack jobs on the left that try to over step their bounds, but the left is usually the side that pushes for the right to assemble, free press, and freedom of speech. Sure they get a bit rambunctious about religious slogans on government buildings, but we were created with a secular government, and many people would like to see it stay that way.
  Not to say that I think the left is correct all the time (or even most of the time) but most of the issues you mention seem to be at odds with your implications in part and of varying shades of gray to say the least.
  -Rick
  
  --
  "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
5. Re:Fuck George Bush! by Rockoon · 2009-12-31 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You are arguing that millions of people who can't readily afford medical insurance should go without because..
  Strawman much? I didn't argue any such thing. I argued that people shouldn't be forced to buy insurance, and this goes DOUBLY for those that can't afford it.
  
  You liberals really are fucking stupid.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
6. Re:Fuck George Bush! by Rockoon · 2009-12-31 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What do the republicans have to do with this? The democrats have the majority. They can pass literally anything that they can all agree on. Apparently the facts of the situations are different from your interpretation, because obviously the democrats cannot all agree on a single payer system.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
7. Re:Fuck George Bush! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 09:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  On January 21, 2009, US President Barack Obama issued an executive order regarding the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and the individuals held there. This order asserted that "[they] have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus".
  Restoring what should be a right for all men to all men is a step in the right direction. Sure, you might not be one of these people, but some day habeas corpus could save your ass when you're dragged away for a trial.
8. Re:Fuck George Bush! by Rockoon · 2009-12-31 10:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So what you are saying is that when he said Republicans he was really being as disingenuous as possible, lumping in Blue Dog Democrats with the term Republicans?
  
  Even when its the Democrats fault, its really the Republicans fault! Gotcha. Can't own up to the Democrats bad policies.. instead gotta blame "them Republicans"
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
9. Re:Fuck George Bush! by Midnight+Thunder · 2009-12-31 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well the problem is that we aren't "climbing out of this mess" if anything, things are getting worse. The problem is that people naively thought that electin Obama would improve things. The truth is that the government does what the people allow it to do. Bush was a warning sign that the checks and balances that were supposed to restrain the federal governments' power are essentially destroyed. The conditions that allowed Bush to frak up this country as bad as he did still exist. Now is it any wonder why the "change we can believe in" didn't happen as people believed it would?
  Change is rarely fast, requires work and environment that allows it to happen. Imagine you had put on 100Lbs (~45Kg) and you decided it was time to do something about it, then you need to consider:
  - it took you time to put on that weight, so it will take time to take it off
  - you have to continue making the effort to reduce the habit
  - when all your friends are making it hard to lose weight, then it will be even harder
  Bush was in power for 8 years and where are today is the accumulation of what Bush did and what was already in place before he and his cronies got there. To be disappointed that Obama, or any person, hasn't solved these problems in the last year is hard, especially when you consider there are a lot of people with invested interests out there.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
10. Re:Fuck George Bush! by Darkness404 · 2009-12-31 12:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, and that still means nothing for the rest of us. Yeah, he wants Guantanamo bay closed and I applaud him for that, but its still open, its causing a mess because he has no decent proposal on to where to put the people.
  
  You don't have the right to drive without auto insurance in most states.
  Which, honestly is a restriction of economic rights that shouldn't be tolerated, but its about the only thing they can do because they can't simply make other people pay for the things they have done while driving. Ideally, it should be if you don't have insurance and hit someone you simply pay for their repairs and everything is alright. That, is how it should be done.
  
  The real fear from the lobbyists generating the massively misinformed hysteria is that we will have the same efficient, mostly socialized systems that they've had in Europe for decades.
  The real fear is the fact that people are blindly voting for it based on party lines and aren't reading the fucking bill. In Europe it wasn't a political move, it was a reasonable, civilized law passing. Not "oh lets try to force a vote over a major holiday to show how "committed" we are to the American public when even half of us can't understand or haven't read the bill" The last time I looked, the bill was over 700 pages of legal words. I think a drunk college student trying to finish Plato's Republic before a final would have a better understanding over that than our congressmen have over this bill.
  
  Follow me on this thought experiment: an uninsured woman, 55 years old, shows up to a hospital dying of kidney failure from diabetes. In a model where you must have have insurance to receive care, the hospital would have to let her die in the parking lot. In our current model where only emergency services are covered, we spend a few hundred thousand on dialysis, various medications, possibly a transplant, and take up space in the ICU. In a model where all care is covered, she has no incentive to wait to see the doctor, and hopefully they'd catch the problem early and we'd all pay far less for her care.
  Ok, your argument fails for a few reasons if we assume a sane economy and a sane healthcare systems.
  
  A) It should be an option to pay for care out of your own pocket. Hospitals should recognize this and give emergency care with the promise of paying back later. For example, I don't walk onto the car lot with $30K in my pocket, I have a bit of money to pay a down payment, then I pay for the rest of the car. What hospitals should do in this case is go for no down payment, then work with the person to pay off the rest of the bills plus perhaps a bit of interest.
  
  B) This legislation is being passed during a recession which is a -bad thing- for example, if someone was making $25,000 a year working for X Corporation, and suddenly X Corporation had to spend $5,000 more on each employee because of healthcare and lets say that X Corporation had about $100,000 to pay employees, suddenly they can't afford 4 employees and have to cut one of them. Yeah, it might be a good thing for the 3 who stayed, but for the one person who had to be let go, it sucks.
  
  C) I believe that the bill also requires (or did) even low-wage, family or full-time part time (such as students) to receive health care. This is a bad thing for young people who are trying to pay their way through college, tech school, or simply trying to make ends meet. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone could make $100,000 a year, be perfectly healthy, live in a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs, and drive a nice, new eco-friendly car, have a Core i7 desktop and all the other things that make us happy. But guess what? That isn't the case. Its a lot nicer to be making a small income and not have health care or only have basic care than to be broke but be able to go to the doctor for most people. Now, granted, for some people with terminal or chronic illness, that isn't the case. But for most
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
11. Re:Fuck George Bush! by copponex · 2010-01-01 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, and that still means nothing for the rest of us. Yeah, he wants Guantanamo bay closed and I applaud him for that, but its still open, its causing a mess because he has no decent proposal on to where to put the people.
  It's only been stalled by the idea that it's okay to send young men and women to fight and die in foreign lands to combat terrorism, but it's not okay to house terrorists in a supermax prison because it's too dangerous. This, despite the fact that we've been housing sociopaths there without incident for decades.
  
  Ideally, it should be if you don't have insurance and hit someone you simply pay for their repairs and everything is alright. That, is how it should be done.
  Ideally, there should be no car accidents. Ideals are nice to keep in mind, but when you're formulating policies, certain hard line positions are worthless to maintain for the people who live in constant fear of slippery slope arguments.
  
  The real fear is the fact that people are blindly voting for it based on party lines and aren't reading the fucking bill. In Europe it wasn't a political move, it was a reasonable, civilized law passing. Not "oh lets try to force a vote over a major holiday to show how "committed" we are to the American public when even half of us can't understand or haven't read the bill" The last time I looked, the bill was over 700 pages of legal words. I think a drunk college student trying to finish Plato's Republic before a final would have a better understanding over that than our congressmen have over this bill.
  This has been how DC has operated for a long time. Why wasn't this an issue for certain media outlets when the PATRIOT Act was signed the day it was first printed? It's an issue of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, there's no money to be made in maintaining basic legal rights, so it's a non issue in American politics. So, a bill that is meant to provide social service improvements to the vast majority of Americans is communist, and a bill that removes our basic rights and assigns all power to a single branch of government is democratic.
  
  A) It should be an option to pay for care out of your own pocket. Hospitals should recognize this and give emergency care with the promise of paying back later. For example, I don't walk onto the car lot with $30K in my pocket, I have a bit of money to pay a down payment, then I pay for the rest of the car. What hospitals should do in this case is go for no down payment, then work with the person to pay off the rest of the bills plus perhaps a bit of interest.
  It's already an option. The hospitals never get their money. The patient is bankrupted for life. Everyone loses.
  
  B) This legislation is being passed during a recession which is a -bad thing- for example, if someone was making $25,000 a year working for X Corporation, and suddenly X Corporation had to spend $5,000 more on each employee because of healthcare and lets say that X Corporation had about $100,000 to pay employees, suddenly they can't afford 4 employees and have to cut one of them. Yeah, it might be a good thing for the 3 who stayed, but for the one person who had to be let go, it sucks.
  There's only one way to stop the race to the bottom of living standards, and that's to stop allowing corporations to abuse people; to enforce minimum wage; to enforce sensible immigration policies so people can get work visas and pay taxes, own property, and buy insurance; and to stop giving tax breaks to the Fortune 500 when they are the ones who own the assets and have the means to pay more than the 10% they pay now (after loopholes).
  
  C) I believe that the bill also requires (or did) even low-wage, family or full-time part time (such as students) to receive health care. This is a bad thing for young people who are trying to pay their way through college, tech school, or simply trying to make ends meet. Yeah, it
I still say... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

The terrorists won. And won big!
They spent what... couple million? some of their dumber guys who they could talk into blowing up.
And got back what... The usa crapped itself and spent BILLIONS of dollars on totally useless 'security'.
Man... they won huge!
1. Re:I still say... by wizardforce · 2009-12-31 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's no longer in the billions. If you count Iraq and Afghanistan, the tab is over a trillion dollars. THe human cost is well over 5,000 dead soldiers, tens of thousands wounded, countless thousands of dead Iraqis and on top of that, they've managed to have the US ruin its own international reputation permanently. The US has become self-terrorizing ever since 9/11 making future terror attacks completely unnecessary.
  
  --
  Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
2. Re:I still say... by csartanis · 2009-12-31 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Same thing?
3. Re:I still say... by joe_frisch · 2009-12-31 06:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They won because we (Americans, Europeans) are stupid cowards. Your chances of being killed by terrorists in the US and Europe are vanishingly small. One estimate puts it at one in 10 million per year, about the same as being eaten by a shark and a thousand times less likely than being killed in a house fire.
  (source was http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/07/13/the_six_most_feared_but_least_likely_causes_of_death.htm, now independent verification)
  Another statistic gives 22000 worldwide deaths / year from terrorism compared with 57 million from other causes.
  What is the big deal? Why should I give up freedoms, privacy and time for this?
  I fly very frequently and I am not afraid of terrorists. I'd be happy to walk through a metal detector set to pick up conventional guns, and run my luggage (laptop still in case) through an X-ray to look for obvious weapons. When terrorists down a US airline every month for a year we can talk again.
4. Re:I still say... by fermion · 2009-12-31 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The terrorist did win by diverting resources from activities that would increase our national prosperity to activities that at best do nothing.
  Very little tangible has been done to limit the threat. For example, here is a US news report on the Saudi Link to terrorism from 2003. Recent articles state that the link is still there, for instance there may have been a 15 million transfer from Saudi fundamentalists to Yemen terrorist forces. For those who do not know, Saudi Arabia earns much of their money through oil, and almost nothing has been done to limit the amount of money they earn. In fact many people they have a right and responsibility to use as much oil as they want, thereby funding the terrorists.
  A better example is the lack of training of the TSA. We have had eight years to create a professional police force. If the TSA screeners were seen as a professional force, instead of simply a work program for people who would otherwise be unemployed, I bet there would be much less protest against the body scanning machines. As it is, the airport screeners are treated as easily replaceable figureheads, not really there to do much of anything. Yet the screeners should be the most important part of airport defense, not only to prevent terrorists from entering the plane, but to prevent suicide bombers in the airport.
  My concern is the TSA does not have leader, and instead of concentrating on making it a professional organization, Conservatives are bickering about unionization. Most police forces in the US are unionized. It is a non issue. This would not really have effected this case. What might have helped, and what will help, is if every country would take the screening process seriously, instead of just assuming that machines will do everything. This is something that is a human problem, and CCTV and x-rays will not solve it. Humans know how to subvert machines. The only flexible agent is another human
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
5. Re:I still say... by redhotgranny · 2009-12-31 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And, frankly, the whole country is close to bankrupt. So, terrorist might win the war on terrorism sooner than anyone expected. I am pretty sure that even they were not really thinking about winning that big. It was coincidence of expensive wars and Wall Street crisis. Resources are running thin and wars just keep going. The biggest problem will soon be increasing cost of new loans when rating goes down. Old loans expire too and they need to be refinanced, which becomes easily vicious circle if you have a bad rating. To think of it does losing 'world leader' status count already as a small victory for terrorist.
6. Re:I still say... by Macrat · 2009-12-31 16:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  al qaeda is a division of the CIA.
Obama Security by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 05:45 · Score: 0, Insightful

As long as Obama (and his wookie are secure, he doesn't care about the rest of us.
WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
Re:government goons by tibman · 2009-12-31 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're seeing it from the wrong side. They have a leak and they want to find/fix it. Which involves their own agents. In order to find that leak they needed information from the recipient of the leaked info. They would rather not involve other civilians if they could.

--
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Bizarre contradiction in terms by M-RES · 2009-12-31 05:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

The TSA security directive was never meant to be known by the public, yet would call for new security measures which would require searching or controlling the public in new ways!? That's a bizarre contradiction. How do you secretly MAKE people submit to new body searches or restrain them in their seats an hour before landing?
I don't think they really thought this plan through...
1. Re:Bizarre contradiction in terms by vitaflo · 2009-12-31 06:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "That was the excuse they used for going after the bloggers; the intent was to discourage anyone else from leaking anything like this again."
  Then they're doing it wrong. One thing all bloggers crave is publicity. I'm not sure you can get much more publicity for your blog than this.
The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by Alcoholist · 2009-12-31 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The terrorists aren't even trying that hard.
They're setting their sights too high. Stopping all air flight in the Western world is easy. You don't even need to get on the plane. Walk into an airport with a few pounds of explosives strapped on under your coat. Think of how many people tend to get queued up at those checkpoints.
When they stop you at the security checkpoint, go boom. It'll only have to happen a few times before air flight is completely stopped indefinitely.

--
Bibo Ergo Sum.
1. Re:The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by A+beautiful+mind · 2009-12-31 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When they stop you at the security checkpoint, go boom. It'll only have to happen a few times before air flight is completely stopped indefinitely.
  Or we finally get the media to drop the "zomg terrorism" stuff and let terrorism become another statistic like automobile accidents. I do not wish any attacks to happen that results in deaths, but if they would happen like every 1-2 months, that would probably result in an overall improvement of affairs because people would just carry on.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
2. Re:The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by shadoelord · 2009-12-31 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've argued this same point time and time again; the TSA and airlines are only worried about expensive planes and the buildings they could hit. Blowing up a security line at Atlanta's Hartsfield airport (busiest in the world) would cause unheard of levels of panic.
  It would be an interesting 'art piece' to draw concentric rings around a random point in line to demonstrate "90% kill", "50% kill" zones.
  
  --
  this is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
3. Re:The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by kevinNCSU · 2009-12-31 06:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Oh totally, just like everyone in Israel completely stopped eating when Hamas and company were blowing up cafes. There's a psychological effect to blowing up an airplane because deep down on a primal level people are already scared of flying because it just aint natural. Plus the view of an airplane falling out of the sky is much more enthralling and attention grabbing then a simple explosion.
  They don't want to attack you where you know you can be attacked, they want to attack you somewhere you're already afraid of, and where the government is trying to tell you is safe and protected to prove they can get to you anywhere, and instill fear.
4. Re:The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by mikael · 2009-12-31 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Then the security checkpoint would be moved to the front of the airport, and queues would form there, which would then be another target for the terrorists.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
5. Re:The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by Alcoholist · 2009-12-31 06:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The permutations of terror of this kind are endless because there are so many points of failure in airport security. These are just off the top of my head:
  - A big fat bomb in your checked luggage. Set to go off say 15 minutes after they check it (bad guy flicks a little switch or something). Would totally bring an airport to a halt.
  - Since you are committed to die for Allah anyway, why not stride into the lobby of an airport with an AK and as much ammo as you can carry and just start shooting until they get you?
  - Car bomb in front of terminal. It's not hard to make a stupid pile of ANFO and cram it into the back of a stolen taxi.
  - Rent a small plane at a regional airport, fly it to a big airport and crash the bugger into a terminal.
  - Drive a truck chock full of explosives on to one of the runways and blow it up. Now you can't land planes on that. Hell, you might even be able to escape from that one with your life.
  I'm not even a terrorist and I can dream up shit like this in a few minutes. Imagine what the actual terrorists are hatching.
  
  --
  Bibo Ergo Sum.
6. Re:The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by Obfuscant · 2009-12-31 06:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  When they stop you at the security checkpoint, go boom. It'll only have to happen a few times before air flight is completely stopped indefinitely.
  You mean the way there is no bus service in Israel or police stations in Iraq?
7. Re:The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-12-31 07:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or you could forget about sexy targets like aircraft entirely. Just put a decent sized bomb, dressed up like a lost duffel bag, under the bleachers of some random middle school in Iowa, just before a little league game.
  
  There is no way in hell you could ever watch, let alone usefully guard, all such locations; but, once the 24/7 news cycle got ahold of a bunch of kids who've seen their cheering friends and families blown to fragments right in front of them, the public will absolutely lose its shit.
8. Re:The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by Knara · 2009-12-31 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They can hatch all they want, however, it seems to me that the main problem Al-Qaeda has lay in some disconnect between their 21st century access to technology and their 12th century outlook on reality.
  I'm not so much saying that their leadership isn't clever and intelligent in terms of coming up with plans. Rather, that their rank-and-file are incompetent, at best, when it comes to carrying out their plans. You can only IED and suicide bomb yourself into a limited amount of success.
  After all, it our security infrastructure had to fail at multiple basic levels in series and the folks on the planes on 9/11 to do nothing to restrain the hijackers in order for the plan to succeed (and in the one case where they did do something, unfortunately too late to save anyone, the plan was foiled -- just like these last two times).
  I'm not saying we should stop trying to improve our security infrastructure, but let's realize that the folks who are planning this stuff are being forced to utilize fodder that is significantly sub-optimal with regard to the task (a short logical leap to make, since they believe that blowing themselves up is a reasonable and sustainable tactic vs the largest military force in the history of the world).
9. Re:The terrorists aren't even trying hard. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 07:50 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Oh totally, just like everyone in Israel completely stopped eating when Hamas and company were blowing up cafes.
  I believe a few random restaurant bombings in the US would cause a large segment of the US to stop eating out. Think how disruptive the beltway sniper was, and that was with random outdoor shootings. Three or four cafe bombs in a week would shut them all down. Israelis face real threats and (generally) place them in proper proportion. Americans face few threats and have an abundance of fear to spend on minor events.
Typical of the fools. by BCW2 · 2009-12-31 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Another proof, to join the seemingly endless list, that Napolitano is totally unqualified to head DHS. A talking head on TV this week made the following reference to her "leadership ability"; She couldn't lead Tiger Woods to a free weekend at a whorehouse!

I am beginning to wonder if there are any qualified people in this administration at all.

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Re:government goons by Darkness404 · 2009-12-31 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except for the fact that this "leak" is something that all Americans should know to begin with. If the average American doesn't know what the policies of the TSA are, they can't check for abuses. The right and responsibility to check for abuses in government is critical in any sort of a free government.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
And insightful post by an annonymous poster.. by RingDev · 2009-12-31 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Terrorism is the use or threat of use of violent to bring about a social, political, or economic change. Any single violent action taken by any terrorist group can not alter any of this. Yes, people will die, destruction will occur, and lives will be change. But it is only in our response to their attacks that our way of life can be changed.
You want to send a chilling message to those who would attack our very society? Find them with our existing intelligence systems. Try them in our existing court systems. Imprison them in our civilian detention system. And build back the Twin Towers just as they were with an anti-aircraft cannon sitting on the top of both of them. Show them the might of a free nation.
Or our politicians (on both sides of the isle) could use these attacks to justify sweeping changes to civil liberties, the judicial system, the creation of a new "security" department, and gross consolidation of federal and presidential power.
-Rick

--
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
1. Re:And insightful post by an annonymous poster.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Always remember - "They hate us for our freedom."
  So in order to protect ourselves, we give all our freedoms to the government so that we don't have them anymore. If we don't have them, the terrists won't hate us, and thus all terrorism will stop!
Forced? by fahrbot-bot · 2009-12-31 06:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 ...

Hmm.... I think Steve and I have different definitions of the word "forced", but it sounds like standard Gestapo - I mean TSA - practices to me.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:Forced? by Darkness404 · 2009-12-31 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You know, in this job market, threatening to get you out of a job isn't a tiny threat. Most people need every dollar they can.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The statistics would show that FORD by crovira · 2009-12-31 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

is the biggest killer in history.
More people died getting TO the front that AT that front.
I think that an online, constantly updated "Cause/mortality bar chart" would be an extremely helpful/useful thing.
Maybe Google should do a little research project, with that "result page" on the data mining processes required to get those figures.

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Re:government goons by Zemran · 2009-12-31 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

I grew up in a world where the people on the other side of the Iron Curtain had no freedom and where subjected to arrest and detention for any criticism of the government. People there could be arrested and put in strange prisons outside of the legal system. Stopped and searched using obscure references to 'enemy of the state' (sort of translates to terrorist). We were all shocked at the things that happened on the other side of the iron curtain and thought that such things could never happen in our society...

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
No surprise there by Jodka · 2009-12-31 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

So the government announces a massive initiative to protect our rights from the terrorists and here we find it harassing online journalists for informing the public about what the government is secretly up to. Not so different from the way it is charged by the Constitution "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," and subsequently creates a legal morass which rewards patents trolls, suppresses innovation with legal harrassment, and extorts campaign donations from perpetual copyright extension. Then there is the initiative to lower health care costs and in improve the quality of care which will raise the costs of medical care and ration medical care. Next up: "Net Neutrality". What could possibly go wrong?
When will Americans wake up and recognize that no matter how noble are the stated goals of politicians that the actual outcomes usually oppose the stated goals?

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Re:government goons by Rakishi · 2009-12-31 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Shocked you say? Amazing how everyone forgets McCarthyism.
How about this approach? by khasim · 2009-12-31 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Explosive goes into condoms which are then stored in your body cavities.
Show up for the flight very early.
During that time, recover the explosives and PREP THE BOMB BEFORE HAND IN THE PUBLIC BATHROOM. You've already cleared security. They don't care about you anymore (until the headlines hit).
So far, our best defense against terrorism seems to be that they're all rather dumb.
1. Re:How about this approach? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 08:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Explosive goes into condoms which are then stored in your body cavities.
  Show up for the flight very early.
  During that time, recover the explosives and PREP THE BOMB BEFORE HAND IN THE PUBLIC BATHROOM. You've already cleared security. They don't care about you anymore (until the headlines hit).
  So far, our best defense against terrorism seems to be that they're all rather dumb.
  Or they're all rather state-sponsored by our intelligence agencies and their black budgets. Their purpose is not to be as smart or effective as possible. Their purpose is to sow fear and to justify all of the fear-mongering and then it's new-government-powers to the rescue. They don't need to be smart to do that job, they only need to exist.
2. Re:How about this approach? by dgatwood · 2009-12-31 14:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Explosive goes into condoms which are then stored in your body cavities.
  This is what I've been pointing out ever since they started talking about those millimeter wave scanners. It is a trivial escalation that completely defeats both backscatter X-Ray and millimeter wave scanners. That means that the only way those machines add ANYTHING to security AT ALL is if they are installed without anybody knowing they are there. Now that we know about them, they are USELESS.
  And still our government is spending millions of dollars on this complete waste of money. Follow the money and I'd be willing to place a sizable bet that the manufacturer of those scanners has contributed a large sum of money to one or both major political parties and/or the campaigns of several high-profile members of our government. That's the only explanation for our government's complete and utter inability to comprehend what a colossal waste of money these things are.
  There is exactly ONE scanner technology that will do ANY good, and that's NQR. Spending even one penny on millimeter wave or backscatter X-Ray systems is just flushing money down the toilet.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Land of the Free... by WCguru42 · 2009-12-31 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Home of the Brave. It's not my usual thing to spout off about people needing to leave the United States of America but gimme a break. A large amount of the federal government practice fear tactics to try and convince the people that they need to give up their freedoms to be safe. And the worst part is, most of these supposed secure measures don't do jack shit. We as a nation need to realize that we'll never be completely safe, that there's no level of TSA gadget that will prevent every single act of violence. We as a nation need to remember that we didn't become a nation by being scared pussies.

--
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
As it was written many many years ago... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-31 08:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was a quote by Benjamin Franklin and later Thomas Jefferson. obviously it still applies today. I would presume they are both rolling in their graves at the new directives.
And as for obama, he came in at the wrong time. It will take many, many years to undo the last 8. Starting at the rank-and-file of a lot of theses agencies that have quickly grown accustom to stripping libertys in the percieved name of safety, and quickly moving up to their bosses to make things "right". Its amazing how other countries can combat this problem without stripping liberties while preserving safety (it's all relevant of course, you are still more likely to die in an automobile accident, most of which happen within 5 miles of home).
Re:This is how journalists protect their sources n by natehoy · 2009-12-31 08:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, this really says nothing about Frischling's level of journalistic professionalism. It would have been far more telling, yea or nay, if he actually knew his sources. His claim is that he doesn't know who left the document in his mailbox, so he's not sending anyone up the river by signing a document attesting that.
If he actually had a name, the act of protecting it or giving it up would be deeply meaningful one way or the other. But testifying a lack of knowledge is neither noble nor reprehensible.
Why should he sacrifice his career to protect, well, nothing?

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
The TSA is really fast with new measures... by Lazy+Jones · 2009-12-31 09:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

The incident happened around 11:20 am (EST) and they managed to send out a new security directive on the same day . One would have thought they'd take longer to draft something as elaborate as that. Who knows, perhaps they had it prepared already for such an incident...

--
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
What the hell is the matter with these people. by omb · 2009-12-31 10:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

On one hand the US National Security aperatus has reverted to pre 9/11 games ie Not Sharing, usually justified to PROTECT SOURCES, in this case a walk in concerned father, and just after they released an incorrectly redacted PDF which contained all the original screening material, just covered in black, and now Napolitano is dithering in Circles.

These idiotic assholes are very lucky I am not president because I would fire all the secretaries, directors, deputy and assistant directors of each of the Departments and Agencies involved in these repeated debacles, in this case CIA, DHS, TSA and anyone else found with dirty hands,

Then I would use the C level pay savings by re-appointing only half these posts to:

Get Schneier to head an office of Risk Assesment of no more than 50 analysts, drawn from existing agencies, reporting to the NSA so we would stop continually fighting the last war.

Get a similar independant thinker to take over and run an Office of Counterterrorist Reference Data, Comprising No-Fly, Watch ... lists with the responsibility get them up-to-date and correct. Web access to all via a web interface.

Finally, let me point out that all this full-body scan/sniffers is bullshit since the next guy to try this will probably put the stuff up his ass, not in his unter hosen, so that unless you use an NMR machine you are not going to find it. That is exactly why it is vital to listen to people like Schneier, who has been consistently correct, rather that sheeple pacifing politicians. This is too serious for business as usual.