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."
Anonymity is quite possibly the only security.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
You forgot puke.
Hypothesis: either anonymity, or total information, can provide equivalent security. If everyone had access to all the information anyone else had, anonymity would no longer be necessary. As it is, anonymity is a kludge to protect those with less access to information from those who have more. It protects the guilty as well as the innocent. If everyone were totally informed (yes, this is purely hypothetical) then no one could act against another's interests unless the majority of humanity agreed with that act. While this would still leave open the possibility of a tyranny of the majority, 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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I think there is a bit of irrational egotism involved in that cowardice.
If I'm a afraid of sharks, I can at least read up on what to do in the ocean, or even lay on the beach while other people are surfing. As an old man, your chances are probably much less, most old men aren't in the ocean all the time.
You say there is a 1 in 1,000,000 chance to die in a house fire. I can bet you that as a educated upper class white male, my chances are less. I actually change batteries/maintain my fire alarm. I don't live in shittily constructed housing, don't smoke, have no kids running around playing with matches. Sure there could be a freak accident, but I'd like to see the stats recalculated to my demographic. Surely they are 10 times less than the uneducated black smoker down the street with kids running around...
Then get to flying. Imagine and old, rich, white, male. Way over represented on aircraft. What are his odds of dying in a terrorist plane attack?
Now look at the senate, or the house, or the upper management at CNN. Maybe you'll see why we get so much attention paid to plane attacks.
Does anyone else think that the TSA is exhibiting symptoms of: The Stanford Prison Experiment, wiki: here. Basically, when given power and the mandate to do something without proper checks and balances then stupidity or sadism emerges. The Stanford Experiment had to be called off early because normal people when put into that framework extremely mistreated other normal people. So, does the TSA need a good spanking and a bit of restructure?
Shh.
I wonder where the "interfere with his contract" language came from.
I only wonder because "tortious interference with contracts" pretty much establishes the legal basis for a lawsuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
When one of my old employers wanted to hold me to an overly broad NDA, every lawyer I spoke with said tortious interference was the first place we'd go.
Step one: stop making sex into a mysterious, shameful activity with negative religious connotations and thus make it possible for people of all ages to discuss it openly. By removing the shame element, combating the social peer pressure elements and creating easy access to information and counseling for children, one can easily detect non-consensual activity (i.e. they will be unafraid to complain). Two: if the kids insist on screwing, ensure that the results are managed: easily available contraception, education etc. Whatever you do, the religious woo-woo based medieval approach currently so much in vogue is the worst possible answer, having the dubious distinction of being ineffective, counter-productive, conductive to authoritarian abuse (which in fact its the reason why authoritarians of all stripes love it) and wholly illogical.
The logical purpose of a society is for all of its members to be better off as compared to them not participating. Subsequently it is society's business that individuals are given the best possible start in it, this includes protection from preventable diseases, genetic disorders included. You porking your sister is none of my business, until she gets pregnant and has a severely damaged child on the way. If we allow that, we fail the primary logical reason for the formation of a society.
Due to the way our genes propagate, the likelihood of genetic errors (normally corrected by DNA that took a slightly different evolutionary path) increases rapidly with decreasing genetic distance. Having said so, it is not absolutely certain that an offspring of siblings has to be damaged, only that it is very likely. Thus the correct procedure would be to test the embryo in early stages of development to determine if any damage is present. Decisions to be made based on the outcome of the tests.
Well, the truth sometimes hurts. If one cannot logically explain himself/herself, one has no business being an "opponent" in any logical discussions, be it with myself or anybody else. I guess you could call it "poisoning of the well" from the point of view of peddlers of all kinds of illogical woo-woo.