Slashdot Mirror


TSA Investigates Pilot Who Exposed Security Flaws

stewart_maximus writes "The TSA is investigating a TSA deputized pilot who posted videos to YouTube pointing out security flaws. Flaws exposed include ground crew clearing security with just a card swipe while pilots have to go through metal detectors, and a 'medieval-looking rescue ax' being available on the flight deck. Three days after posting the video, 6 government officials arrived at his door to question him and confiscated his federal firearm (and his concealed weapon permit)."

394 comments

  1. Pretty sure... by Kazzerscout · · Score: 1

    that the correct spelling is 'axe'.

    1. Re:Pretty sure... by a+Flatbed+Darkly · · Score: 3, Informative

      As far as I know, "ax" is acceptable in American English, British English only permits "axe". I noticed TFA's inability to spell "hassled" in the headline far more. On an unrelated note, I wonder whether they would have pressed charges were the employee in question to have disclosed the vulnerabilities only to the TSA. It's been done in the context of comp security, so I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it happen to someone reporting on physical security.

    2. Re:Pretty sure... by AGMW · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course "ax" is the correct pronunciation for "ask" in certain quarters too, so perhaps the confusion runs deeper still and it's actually a "rescue ask" that's looking medieval?

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    3. Re:Pretty sure... by JustOK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the TSA wasn't aware of this flaw prior to this, we are even in more danger.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, "ax" is the correct pronunciation for "ask" in certain quarters... Illiterate quarters that is!

    5. Re:Pretty sure... by jimrthy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The TSA already knows all about this. Harassing this guy is just more proof that the TSA has absolutely nothing to do with keeping people safe.

    6. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Official: Thermos alert an attempt to think ahead The Associated Press Friday, December 24, 2010; 10:03 AM WASHINGTON -- A top military official says new warnings about insulated beverage containers are an example of federal officials trying to anticipate terror tactics. Adm. James Winnefeld told The Associated Press Friday that the Transportation Security Administration is "always trying to think ahead." Winnefeld is the head of the U.S. Northern Command, which is charged with protecting the homeland. TSA officials had said Thursday that in coming days, passengers flying within and to the U.S. may notice additional security measures related to insulated beverage containers such as thermoses. Winnefeld says officials responsible for homeland security are always a bit more alert over the holiday season. He says there has been a lot of chatter online about potential terror activity, but nothing specific.

    7. Re:Pretty sure... by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, "ax" is acceptable in American English, British English only permits "axe". I noticed TFA's inability to spell "hassled" in the headline far more.

      Here in the US we have a problem with words like xmas as well. Using the letter x ... bluescreens our brains. Thanx for answering. We didn't even have to ax you any questions!

    8. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like crazy people seeing things that ain't there, all we see is extra exes.

      --vlueboy

    9. Re:Pretty sure... by pckl300 · · Score: 1

      Harassing this guy is just more proof that the TSA has absolutely nothing to do with keeping people safe.

      Well, that depends. Creating the feeling of 'safety' inside people's heads is easier than actually making them safe.

      --
      In the beginning, there was null.
    10. Re:Pretty sure... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      ...a 'medieval-looking rescue ax' being available on the flight deck...

      Ironically, it's actually a really, really, really, old guitar, used to calm passengers with folk songs, or club anyone that gets out of hand.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    11. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, "ax" is acceptable in American English, British English only permits "axe".

      If you ax me, I says you right.

    12. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, "ax" is acceptable in American English, British English only permits "axe".

      No, it's axe, as in, "Nigga, I axed you a question!"

    13. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, "ax" is acceptable in American English, British English only permits "axe".

      I axed my English professor, and he said you have to spell it "ask".

    14. Re:Pretty sure... by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Yes, so everyone, "Assume Crash Positions!" Also, hide under your school desk when a nuclear bomb is coming.

      There are a lot of very stupid and very angry people who vote. They will be given the question "why didn't you do anything about this" to ask. And they will keep asking it over and over again even when the correct answer is "nothing can be 100% effective and even trying to do something will cause more harm than good." It's just what happens.

      I don't think there has ever been a time in the U.S. where intelligent and thoughtfulness prevailed.

    15. Re:Pretty sure... by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      I don't think there has ever been a time in the U.S. where intelligent and thoughtfulness prevailed.

      Yes, we just accidentally blundered our way into being the world's premier superpower.

    16. Re:Pretty sure... by silanea · · Score: 1

      Yes, we just accidentally blundered our way into being the world's premier superpower.

      [citation needed]

      Your premier superpower is broke. The Chinese hold your currency and thereby your economy by the balls to squeeze or crush as they see fit. Your premier superpower is currently going through its second Vietnam, with the Russians shouting "told you so" over their laughter every other week. Your premier superpower has been turned into a poor man's rip-off of the German Democratic Republic, spying on its populace, interning and murdering foreign and domestic "enemies" in violation of international law.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    17. Re:Pretty sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like govenment as a whole has nothing to do with keeping people free , calling the states a democratia is a very tragic joke

    18. Re:Pretty sure... by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      If the TSA wasn't aware of this flaw prior to this, we are even in more danger.

      I guaranee they knew. I commend the pilot for exposing the flaws. The only way to get the incompetent to do any thing is to expose their incompetence.

  2. Re:Land of the free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You didn't even try.

    There is more to this than what it appears.

  3. What I don't understand... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Granted, I haven't seen all the videos this pilot made, but from what I have seen and read so far it sounds like what this pilot was pointing out was things that were already publicly known. Things like airport ground crews having access to restricted areas without themselves having to go through screening, no TSA agents searching them or anything they carry prior to having access to aircraft, etc. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence could have figured out what this pilot documented by just sitting at an airport and watching for a little while, or by getting chummy with airport employees at a nearby bar and asking a few basic questions.

    And I certainly don't think this pilot was the first one to point out these flaws. It just sounds to me like the TSA is trying to make a scapegoat out of him.

    1. Re:What I don't understand... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I read an article on this about six months ago. It's public knowledge, yes.

      The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The persecution of this pilot isn't for giving away security secrets. It is for making a popular video on YouTube that exposes the security theater. The purpose of the TSA is to make the public feel like they are protected. Pointing out real security issues breaks the illusion.

    3. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You forgot your sarcasm tag. The guy flying the plane doesn't need any weapons to destroy it, he's controlling the biggest weapon, the plane itself.

    4. Re:What I don't understand... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, like Patrick Smith (aka 'Ask the Pilot), a professional pilot and writer who has been complaining, and writing, about these exact things for years.

      Maybe he will get a lump of coal in his stocking tomorrow.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:What I don't understand... by smchris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same old story. You don't expose the idiocies of power and expect a jolly response for your helpfulness.

    6. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pilot is getting "Julianed" for exposing the theater of the TSA.

      The US govt is becoming increasingly petty and vindictive, even by govt standards.

    7. Re:What I don't understand... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?

      That would only be true if they were searching the guy in the cockpit, but they aren't. They are searching a guy in a uniform walking into a terminal. The TSA agents have a tough enough time distinguishing between guns and sticks of deodorant. It is unwise to expect them to be able to accurately verify the identity of someone who claims to be a pilot.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:What I don't understand... by microbox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... trying to make a scapegoat out of him.

      It is how the authoritarian minds works. You are either with us, or against us. Basic intelligence doesn't play a role.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    9. Re:What I don't understand... by jimrthy · · Score: 2

      It's one thing to mention the bits and pieces in isolation. It's quite a different matter to put them all together and point out the logical conclusion. Especially if you're someone as trusted as a pilot.

      It's vital that "they" get him dismissed as a crackpot or some sort of dangerous traitor, ASAP. Otherwise, he's just undermined Big Brother's tenuous position.

    10. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and so does the guy putting shit in the plane you're taking off in to make sure it's not a bomb. Makes sense, right?

    11. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?

      Probably not, but it does make sense to search the guy who's dressed like and otherwise attempting to appear/behave like a pilot. How do you tell the difference?

    12. Re:What I don't understand... by corbettw · · Score: 2

      Yes, because it would be impossible for the airlines to screen their own pilots and then issue them a special device to open otherwise-locked doors.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    13. Re:What I don't understand... by teslar · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the TSA is to make the public feel like they are protected.

      The purpose of the TSA is to make it impractical for "bad" people to attack an airplane. How much they suck at their job is of course a separate topic.

    14. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder... Do TSA agents have to be screened themselves when they go to work at the checkpoints?

      I worried they don't... because the intelligence (or lack thereof) displayed almost everywhere at the airport security checkpoints suggests that it is a *requirement* to be completely stupid and without any common sense or social skills. Furthermore it is obvious that the people running that useless organization are even dumber and out of touch with reality.

      It would be infants play to infiltrate and/or circumvent that system, and I bet that it has already happened.

    15. Re:What I don't understand... by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Yes, just as much as NOT screening the guys with unlimited access to the cargo holds, the fuel, the gear hydraulics, the flaps and probably all the avionics as well... After all, it's much more likely that a random family father brings liquid explosive in a soda bottle that an Al-Queda agent gets a job cleaning muck around a parked plane (background checks are non-existent in almost every airport in the world) and places a huge crate filled with explosive in a cargo hold... So we confiscate the bottle just in case and just stop worrying about the nameless staff messing around the parked planes... they wouldn't do anything... after all, they work there you know!

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    16. Re:What I don't understand... by arose · · Score: 1

      The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?

      How do people manage to conveniently forget that there are two guys? If one of them wants to bring the plane down, the other would probably try to stop him. Thus having a weapon would still be advantageous even to a malicious pilot.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    17. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it would be impossible for the airlines to screen their own pilots and then issue them a special device to open otherwise-locked doors.

      Like a key that can be stolen?
      Or a combination that be shoulder surfed?

    18. Re:What I don't understand... by thej1nx · · Score: 1
      I have read through your comment several times and feel an overwhelming need to ask you one simple question : "Dude! Had you been smoking weed when you posted that?"

      If TSA agents cannot verify anyone's identity, what is to stop some terrorist from putting on the uniform of a TSA agent and walking right past the checks? By your own argument, this is a big glaring loophole and requires that all the TSA agents should be strip searched by each other in full public view in the first place. Right?

      Or they could, like, with all those fancy biometric machines, simply verify the fingerprints and id-card of someone claiming to be a pilot. And if you are going to pretend that this simple and obvious solution did not occur to you, may I, on behalf of the human species, request you not to breed?

    19. Re:What I don't understand... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?

      One could argue that searching -everyone- is a reasonable way to make sure a terrorist couldn't just buy an official looking uniform and fake some credentials to get through security. I'd probably respond with "We have yet to see terrorists that competent, the terrorists we have now are barely capable of detonating their own bombs," but that's an argument that could be made.

      Another argument could be along the lines of we should all have to suffer the same stupid security measures or none of us should. If pilots, TSA agents, airline execs, legislators, and rich people are exempted from security theater, the rest of us commoners will have to put up with it too until the end of time since no one will change it. Granted, that's probably already mostly true.

    20. Re:What I don't understand... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      this is a big glaring loophole and requires that all the TSA agents should be strip searched by each other in full public view in the first place. Right?

      (1) I'm fully on board with that.

      (2) Practically that's not necessary, the TSA agents know each other quite well since they spend 8 hour shifts working together on a daily basis and no system trumps the accuracy of a person identifying someone they are already extremely familiar with. Pilots, on the other hand, are far less well known by TSA agents - little more than any other regular flier in the best case and in the common case probably much less so.

      Or they could, like, with all those fancy biometric machines, simply verify the fingerprints and id-card of someone claiming to be a pilot.

      You mean spend even more money buying expensive and less than accurate systems that can be spoofed with only a small effort?
      If you believe, as the TSA claims, that their current systems are effective why go out of the way to implement a set of special cases?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    21. Re:What I don't understand... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Like a key that can be stolen?
      Or a combination that be shoulder surfed?

      Like the ones ground crews are already using?

    22. Re:What I don't understand... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Like the ones ground crews are already using?

      Isn't that what one of the things the video exposed - the fact that the ground crews are yet another glaring hole in the security system?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    23. Re:What I don't understand... by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      Granted, I haven't seen all the videos this pilot made, but from what I have seen and read so far it sounds like what this pilot was pointing out was things that were already publicly known. Things like airport ground crews having access to restricted areas without themselves having to go through screening, no TSA agents searching them or anything they carry prior to having access to aircraft, etc. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence could have figured out what this pilot documented by just sitting at an airport and watching for a little while, or by getting chummy with airport employees at a nearby bar and asking a few basic questions.

      And I certainly don't think this pilot was the first one to point out these flaws. It just sounds to me like the TSA is trying to make a scapegoat out of him.

      All of this is happening when the lobbyists for the worthless porno scanners are trying to keep Congress from putting a cap on spending for TSA. Most/all of these are either former members of Congress or government employees. On the other hand...the "bad guys in the black hats" are shipping bombs in by cargo planes and other methods...since they know 95% of all cargo isn't inspected.

      If TSA/the government were serious about protecting the public...rather than lining the pockets of former government employees/former members of Congress...they would be putting the perv's out at the ports inspecting where the real threat is going to happen. Since this means those who profit won't make anything. When a bomb does go off at the dock/the cargo area of the airport...all those who would not do what is needed should be flown to the offending country and put on trial in their courts.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    24. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain your concept of "liquid explosive" and let me know how that works. It's a very hard thing to make. You'd need about 50-75 pounds of ice while making it since it spontaneously combusts and you're constantly putting it out.

    25. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm an ex-TSO (airport security actor). No, we didn't get screened. The background check they do on us goes back 10 years. They want a paramilitary organization. They're very honest about that. They prefer to hire ex-military since they want people trained to not think but will follow commands. The problem is the work injures a lot of people and you're not paid much. The turn-over rate is high. That's what gets in people who aren't ex-military.

      The smoking gun should do a section of mug shots from TSA employees arrested in uniform for stealing from passengers, getting DUIs and the like. That happens on a regular basis.

    26. Re:What I don't understand... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      Thus having a weapon would still be advantageous even to a malicious pilot.

      Fortunately, the aircraft manufacturer provided a large fire-axe in the cockpit.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    27. Re:What I don't understand... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Crash Ax

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    28. Re:What I don't understand... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      They are searching a guy in a uniform walking into a terminal.

      And security is so tight, it seems anyone can walk right into a secured airport, right up to a large, commercial airplane, and crawl right inside. But good thing we're spending our tax dollars where its assured to prevent absolutely nothing. If a sixteen year old kid can completely circumvent airport security, I'm sure less determined terrorists will give it a second thought. Just think how trivial it would have been to have placed pipe bombs into those landing gear bays. I guess better not to think of that and to simply harass pilots who fly the damn things, while ignoring everyone else who have direct aircraft access; and less likely to die as the result of terrorist action.

    29. Re:What I don't understand... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Allowing access with a mere swipe of a card is the very thing that is being complained about when it comes to the maintenance workers.
      From my experience, every time I've had to enter a secure area at the airport there was at least a two-level authentication, a card that I can either a swipe or hold up to a proximity reader, plus either a PIN or a fingerprint. In addition, though there wasn't always a metal detector to walk through, there was always someone to look through your bags.
      One real hole in this security theater is trucks driving into the airport. They are obviously not going through a metal detector and don't get more than a cursory inspection.

    30. Re:What I don't understand... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I read an article on this about six months ago. It's public knowledge, yes.

      The guy with the controls in his hands and a locked cabin door behind him needs to be searched to see if he's carrying a weapon. Makes sense, right?

      Remember, no good deed goes unpunished and no fuckup goes unrewarded.
      One day, all the pilots will quit this nbullshit and the only people that will fly will be birds.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    31. Re:What I don't understand... by dmoynihan · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is that nobody really reads Salon anymore, whereas every iPad/Android phone can watch YouTube videos.

      Oh what the hell, I tried to put a reason behind something TSA did. Never mind, but thanks for the links to Mr. Smith.

    32. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      airport ground crews having access to restricted areas without themselves having to go through screening, no TSA agents searching them or anything they carry prior to having access to aircraft, etc.

      I'm sure I know why they are allowed through without screening, forcing pilots through the screening, they may complain but the money's to good, so they do. The ground crews don't make so much, imagine the chaos if every member of the ground crew decided it wasn't worth all that shit for so little money, no more flights! No more work for the TSA

    33. Re:What I don't understand... by tftp · · Score: 1

      One real hole in this security theater is trucks driving into the airport.

      Do you think TSA would allow to store a few tons of flammable liquids in the airplane? So yes, trucks of course need to skip the TSA and go right in.

    34. Re:What I don't understand... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Um, this pilot did carry a gun in the cockpit. He was supposed to.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    35. Re:What I don't understand... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Further to that point, a mechanic could conceal a screwdriver in the cabin to be used by a hijacker as a weapon, or he could just sabotage a component and wreck the aircraft that way.

    36. Re:What I don't understand... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Like the ones ground crews are already using?

      Isn't that what one of the things the video exposed - the fact that the ground crews are yet another glaring hole in the security system?

      In reality you either trust your ground crews or you don't fly. They have to walk around with deadly weapons (tools) just to do their jobs. You could confiscate sharp objects at the metal detector then they would pick the same tools up from their tool box and keep going.

    37. Re:What I don't understand... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The axe (or ax) works both ways. My uncle is a former airline pilot and he personally knows of many situations where either the captain or first officer experienced a mental breakdown and had to be removed from the flight deck.

    38. Re:What I don't understand... by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1

      The code is 1 2 3 4 5 for all airports across the world. Huh. Odd. That's the same as my luggage combination.

    39. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it would be impossible for someone to knock out said pilot and steal the special device to open otherwise-locked doors.

    40. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the TSA agents know each other quite well since they spend 8 hour shifts working together on a daily basis and no system trumps the accuracy of a person identifying someone they are already extremely familiar with.

      And the TSA never hires, promotes, demotes, or transfers personnel.

    41. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pilots... have pilot ID's.

      ID tech has come far enough that it's trivial to have a picture ID that can be swiped and have it's authenticity verified.

    42. Re:What I don't understand... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      In reality you either trust your ground crews or you don't fly. They have to walk around with deadly weapons (tools) just to do their jobs. You could confiscate sharp objects at the metal detector then they would pick the same tools up from their tool box and keep going.

      Which may or may not be true depending on if you consider bombs to be tools, but either way its irrelevant to the question of whether or not the same is required of people who may impersonate a pilot.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    43. Re:What I don't understand... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      And the TSA never hires, promotes, demotes, or transfers personnel.

      Seems pretty obvious that people new to the job site would be escorted in and introduced by a member of the group that everybody does know.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    44. Re:What I don't understand... by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1

      How do you know the person in a pilot's uniform is actually a pilot? If pilots get less screening, you create incentive for an attacker to try to sneak in using that lower security route. Maybe identify a pilot that you or one of your allies looks a bit like, waylay him the night before and steal his uniform and ID. You might not be able to actually fly the plane, or even taxi it to the runway, but you can certainly smuggle explosives or weapons in to hand off to "passengers" planning on hijacking a plane.

      Heck, you don't even need to fake being a pilot. If you can find a pilot who is willing to participate in murder, be it for religion or money, but who personally would rather not die or be caught, well, they can help! Just smuggle weapons or explosives in through the low security pilot line, hand them off, then head off to your job.

      Of course this is all security theater given that ground crew and other people in the secure area receive little to no screening at all. It's much easier to fake being ground crew.

    45. Re:What I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which airline is this?

    46. Re:What I don't understand... by 4phun · · Score: 1

      The persecution of this pilot isn't for giving away security secrets. It is for making a popular video on YouTube that exposes the security theater. The purpose of the TSA is to make the public feel like they are protected. Pointing out real security issues breaks the illusion.

      B I N G O

      The original story on CNN said the TSA's airport security was all SMOKE and MIRRORS.

    47. Re:What I don't understand... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Sabotaging a plane in such a way that it fails in the sky instead of on the ground before takeoff is harder than it sounds, and it sounds pretty hard. Much easier to smuggle something onto the aircraft and let someone onboard do the deed.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    48. Re:What I don't understand... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      It's a lot easier to get somebody hired at a company that supplies sandwiches than at an airline. The fact that fuel tankers must bring flammable liquids through security doesn't mean that it's not a security hole so big you can drive a truck through it. Literally.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    49. Re:What I don't understand... by Transaction7 · · Score: 1

      How dare you make such awfully scandalous allegations and give such aid and comfort to our enemies? Don't you realize that telling the truth, especially truth that the enemy and everyone else already knows becuase much of this has been published before, maybe without YouTuber video, violates, but commercial nude lap dancing is protected by, the First Amendment? Like a lot of the rest of the huge amounts of money shoveled to politically connected hogs by the Homeland Security Department, with the connivance of Congresses, under both parties, this is pure politics. Come, now, arrests and convictions are public record, and can you or Janet Napolitano at HS or Pistole at TSA identify one (1) single terrorist TSA has arested before they got, and prevented from getting onto, a plane or other target area? Medieval looking fire axes have been on planes since I started flying over fifty years ago, so I presume any real terrorist knows about them. Ditto the comparably lax security around unskilled plane cleaners, loaders, and other ground personnel than pilots we entrust with the plane itself and or lives, meaning that his being allowd to carry a pistol after training raises his danger level to anyone except a terrorist or other violent assailant by about the same fraction of a percent as his carrying aq Twinkie. I'm a retired lawyer and every once in awhile somebody needs to point out that the legal definition of a "deadly weapon" quite naturally and properly starts with the word "anything." If I wanted to, I could probably still get the one blade out of a disposable razor that an inmate here got through jail and courthouse security and used to cut his lawyer's throat through. Have you seen the military manual suggesting using a BIC pen and other such unconventional weapons? TSA refuses to tell my U. S. Senator or me whether or not I am on their "no fly" list or am free to fly despite, for example, a congenital condition that is probable cause for a warrantless arrest here and in most jurisdictions, but people who have already used bombs against the Pentagon and other American targets have offices in and passes into the White House. The unpleasant fact is that we're over-reacting to terrorism, including shoe bombers, etc., just exactly the way Rules for Radicals, by Obama's late mentor Saul Alinsky, and other sources tell terrorists to goad the authorities into doing. They're costing us more in largely useless security theater than they could wiht a reasl attack. Of course, under Bush's people, HS and TSA pushed aluminum foil and duct tape as security, too.

    50. Re:What I don't understand... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      How about an oil leak.

  4. way to go TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...keeping us safe from all those pilots!

  5. I shot the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    but I did not catch the terroriiists.

    (c) 2010, the TSA.

    1. Re:I shot the messenger by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Ya mon! Stick it to da Man, or so.

    2. Re:I shot the messenger by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, "did not catch the terrorists"? Clearly this guy is a terrorist. Consider:

      - he posted a video exposing flaws in air travel security
      now the passengers know they aren't safe, and they will be terrified because of it
      - so he spreads terror
      - so he is a terrorist

      But now the American public can sleep safe, since we've had that son of a bitch.

    3. Re:I shot the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Shutdown -p now", you must not listen to much music or you would've gotten the musical joke from the AC.

  6. more leaks by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Nazi government of US of A has turned completely bat-shit insane. All it does is taking away personal freedoms from people:

    Freedoms to speak (wikileaks), freedoms to think (public schools funded and guided by the dep't of education), freedoms to fair trial (Irwin Schiff, Guantanamo, private Manning...), freedoms to do business without harassment (Patriot Act, IRS, CIA, all the regulations and rules and subsidies and taxes), freedoms to deal in real money (Fed printing, 0% interest setting, destruction of currency).

    The entire thing is rotten to the core, whether you agree with me on every point or not, but I am not interested in any consensus. My consensus is simple: gov't is cancer and it's killing the society through killing the economy and taking away people's freedoms.

    Some justify the US federal gov't in what it does by bringing up the commerce clause, the general welfare clause etc., but since the gov't can justify anything it wants with those clauses right now it's time to ask yourself a question:

    Is there a PURPOSE to the Constitution and what IS the purpose? Isn't the purpose of the Constitution to LIMIT the gov't in what it can do? If the commerce/welfare clauses allow the gov't to do whatever it wants, what is then the real purpose of the Constitution and why not just say: gov't can do whatever the fuck it wants and be done with the pretenses?

    1. Re:more leaks by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good slave.

    2. Re:more leaks by thijsh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being realistic never meant you should just accept everything that is wrong. Compromising with evil makes you an accessory to evil. And even the impossible is worth fighting for, especially since sometimes taking on this impossible fight makes previously impossible things possible. People who fight an impossible fight like Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela or even Thich Quang Duc are heroes because they refuse to compromise with injustice even in the face of prosecution, imprisonment and death.

    3. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The purpose of the Constitution is not to limit government. The purpose of the Constitution is to enumerate the powers the government does have.

      I don't disagree with what you're saying, and this is a subtle distinction, but it's an important one to consider the spirit of the nation -- I'd call it a broken spirit at this time.

    4. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I can't grasp the PURPOSE of "rant". Are you advocating change?. I do not see your solution to the problem.

    5. Re:more leaks by houghi · · Score: 1

      Once a wise man said: [...] but you can't fool all the people all the time.
      Them somebody said: Why should we fool them? They won't do anything against it if we do.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:more leaks by TheCarp · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No, actually thats the lie. The purpose of the constitution was to create a central authority which could effectively put down peasant revolts, slave revolts, and deal with the Indians who were not happy about us moving into their lands.

      At least, or at least, thats what some of the letters going around between the founding fathers were saying, right around the time of Shay's rebellion here in MA... you know, the one that happened after veterans of the revolution complained that they fought and many died and they got a raw deal, the new government eventually agreed to give them some land, and then taxed them for the land and tried to take it away from them.

      If they wanted to limit government, they could have stayed with the, far superior, Articles of Confederation.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedoms to speak (wikileaks), freedoms to think (public schools funded and guided by the dep't of education), freedoms to fair trial (Irwin Schiff, Guantanamo, private Manning...), freedoms to do business without harassment (Patriot Act,

      Never heard of Irwin Schiff, but it seems like mostly reasonable complaints here...

      IRS

      OK, you're kind of crazy...

      CIA

      I guess they did overthrow a bunch of legit governments over the years. Chile in 1973 comes to mind. And I think they were implicated in some torture in Iraq or something, though I can't be sure. Yeah, they've done some bad stuff.

      all the regulations and rules and

      OK, you've jumped into the crazy again. There are lots of things that we need to regulate. As an example: Are you opposed to food safety laws? If you are against that, would you volunteer to eat something that FDA/USDA has given a failing grade? Or, if you really favor market-based competition, I would expect you to think antitrust laws are a good idea. Gotta preserve those free markets, and if a corporate entity vertically integrates and gets too large, that's not a free market.

      and subsidies

      You're right; we should stop subsidizing corn. Unfortunately this will not go over so well in Iowa where people decide who gets nominated for President.

      and taxes),

      See also: death. I'm not sure how a government can do anything, including the good stuff that you no doubt depend on for your daily life, without taxes.

      Is there a PURPOSE to the Constitution and what IS the purpose? Isn't the purpose of the Constitution to LIMIT the gov't in what it can do?

      Others have pointed out that it sort of defines what the government is. In some cases that means what it can't do ("Congress shall make no law ...."). In others it is quite the opposite ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ...") If you are not content with this description I encourage you to read it here. (Although that website comes from a .gov domain, which obviously makes it part of the CIA/IRS/USDA conspiracy to tax and regulate away your freedom to sell tainted beef.)

    8. Re:more leaks by dbIII · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You're only going to be satisfied with some Libertarian utopian society.

      They can already have their libertarian dream as a factory or mine boss in China so long as they don't say bad things about the government there. No annoying regulations, pay their workers whatever the poorest will accept, and if a few die that's their own problem for choosing to work for them isn't it?
      Meanwhile in a state that is supposed to be run for the benefit of the majority and not just the powerful we can do a hell of a lot better than shooting the messenger just because it embarrasses the powerful.

    9. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of over-baked melodramatic nonsense. Why don't you try exercising the "freedom to think" before you begin lamenting its loss.

    10. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Nazi government of US of A has turned completely bat-shit insane. All it does is taking away personal freedoms from people

      You're "bat-shit insane" if you think that that is anything like the Nazis. And you're totally ignorant of history if you think that the US is less free today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

      Yes, there are problems in the US, there always have been and there always will be; it's the nature of democracy and freedom. If we want to deal with those, citizens need to get smarter, more informed, and more politically and historicaly aware.

      What we don't need is foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics like you.

    11. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being realistic never meant you should just accept everything that is wrong. Compromising with evil makes you an accessory to evil.

      All true, but that doesn't apply here. Laws like the US Patriot Act, organizations like the TSA, and wars like Iraq are ill-conceived and ineffective; they are not part of an evil master plan to subjugate Americans or take over the world. And if you treat them like that, you can't effectively work against them.

      Educate yourself and others about politics and history, participate in the political process, donate, volunteer, write, expose, leak, whatever: that's the way things get better in a democracy. Dividing the world into "good" and "evil" is empty demagoguery.

    12. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      At least, or at least, thats what some of the letters going around between the founding fathers were saying, right around the time of Shay's rebellion here in MA

      First of all, which ones are you referring to? Secondly, I'm sure people had all sorts of motivations in participating in the writing of the Constitution. But individual motivations don't give the document its meaning or significance, that's determined by its eventual outcome and application. And the Constitution has been used to establish historically unprecedented liberties in the US.

    13. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this: the TSA's actions are inevitable, given democracy.

      If there is a terrorist attack, people in the government will be blamed, rightly or wrongly. The purpose of the TSA is to ensure that the President can say "I did everything I could to prevent this". That way, he holds on to his job, because the TSA is never able to say, "Well, if only Obama had allowed us to cavity search each flyer like we asked, then this tragedy would have been averted." Result - the public blames the President for failing to adequately protect them, and he loses the next election.

      Sans democracy, the President cares only about practical matters, like finding a sensible balance between the cost of security and its effectiveness. If we blame him for the next 9/11, he doesn't give a shit, because (a) he knows we are wrong, and (b) there's nothing we can do about it anyway. An improvement, I'd say, because the sort of practical liberty that matters to people increases (they are not unduly hassled in the airport), and a whole bunch of useless parts of the government can just disappear, since they exist only to cover someone's ass - an ass that no longer needs to be covered.

    14. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, just looked up Irwin Schiff.

      From Wikipedia:

      Schiff had filed Federal income tax returns through the tax year 1973. For years 1974 and 1975, however, he refused to disclose his income. Instead, he sent unsigned[2] 1040 forms to the Internal Revenue Service with the title ("U.S. Individual Income Tax Return") changed to read "U.S. Individual Income Confession." Instead of disclosing income, he included assertions of various constitutional rights on the forms, claiming essentially that under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Thirteenth Amendments he would not be an "involuntary serf" of the U.S. government. Schiff contended that because Federal Reserve notes were not backed by gold, they were not “income” for purposes of the Federal income tax.[4]

      Wow, he sounds like a nut. Seriously, it's one thing to be against taxes, even to believe that the current tax scheme is unconstitutional, but to include paranoid rants about serfdom on a tax return? He did know no one with any authority was going to read that, right? What does he think, some low-level clerk sorting tax returns is going to say, "by golly you're right!", and let him off the hook? It sounds like he has mental problems.

      Also, be careful with that constitution link I gave you. It's not a perfect document. Check out this:

      The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

      Whoa. Slavery much?

    15. Re:more leaks by thijsh · · Score: 2

      There are degrees of evil, and degrees of participation in evil. What Stanley Milgram (and more recent experiments with deadly shocks) showed with his experiments is that any person has the potential for evil deeds... So it's not black-and-white indeed.

    16. Re:more leaks by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Wasn't the dream of Libertopia realized in Somalia?

    17. Re:more leaks by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You - FUCK YOU

      Manning is sitting in a solitary cell for 23 hours a day for 200 days now even though he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet.

      He is being tortured by the US gov't, who is interested in one thing: find a way to charge Julian Assange with some sort of conspiracy, so they can prosecute him.

      The torture of solitary confinement will lead to Manning's psychological health being compromised, this is a human rights violation right there and WHO in the US 'real media' is challenging the US gov't?

      MSNBC did an interview that's about the scope of it.

      Manning is being tortured, he is not guilty of anything yet, he is being psychologically and also physically tortured, you can't hold a person hostage for 200 days in solitary confinement, deny them the right even to exercise in his own cell and expect him to be OK after that.

      So

    18. Re:more leaks by Cwix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, fuck dignity, it's in the name of security. If you can't stand a single ball grab then you don't deserve to ride in a plane.

      Every time I see someone say that I remember someone who is beloved by a large number of republicans. John Wayne. Would he let some smelly fat man give his coin purse a jingle?

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    19. Re:more leaks by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 0

      Freedoms to speak (wikileaks)

      Assange is an Australian, he doesn't have any rights under the US Constitution while not on American soil.

    20. Re:more leaks by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We did compromise, and the Constitution is the result of that compromise. We delegated certain limited powers to the central government, and despite the fact that they routinely ignore the limitations in the Constitution, it is nevertheless the entirety of the legal basis for the government's existence.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    21. Re:more leaks by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You, youngster, are a sick sumbitch. If I can't stand some pervert massaging my balls, I don't DESERVE a plane ride? WTF does deserving have to do with it? What's next - if I can't bend over for some freindly fornication from my local grocer, I don't DESERVE a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk? I'll bet half the people in Washington and all the people at TSA think like you. Sick, sick, sick. I wish you'd all fuck off and die.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:more leaks by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      The only way to get enough power to make any sort of effective change is to join one of the "two" political parties. Spend years promoting their agenda. By the time you've been involved long enough to get your voice heard, you'll have been conditioned to believe that agenda you've been promoting for so long.

      As long as we let them write (and re-write) the rules at their whim, they keep getting more powerful, and we keep walking down the road to slavery.

    23. Re:more leaks by todrules · · Score: 1

      And then a not-so-wise man once said, "Fool me once, shame on - shame on me. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

    24. Re:more leaks by Froggels · · Score: 0

      There has been more than enough "compromise".

    25. Re:more leaks by JackDW · · Score: 2

      No. Capitalism requires the rule of law - i.e., a completely fair system to enforce everyone's right to their own property.

      Without that, you just have gangsterism: property is (literally) theft. That's Somalia.

      Libertarians who say "no government" actually mean "no government, except for law enforcement". Unfortunately libertarians often fall into the trap of believing their ideas are self-evident and obvious, which is no longer true. Consequently they don't always state exactly what they mean.

      --
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    26. Re:more leaks by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      As much as GP's desires are grossly unrealistic and would lead to a Libertarian dystopia, he or she has a point that the whole "land of the free" rhetoric is hollowed out and stinks of hypocrisy. I cannot imagine the "socialist" western European country I'm coming from to treat the pilot like this, or Private Manning, or to have something equivalent to Guantanamo, the Patriot act, the DMCA, the which hunt against wikileaks, or (to throw in a few smaller thing) millimeter scanners, pat-downs and absurd liquor laws. I hate to break it to you, but I felt much more free living in Europe than in the US.

    27. Re:more leaks by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever spent time in solitary? I haven't, but unless you have, how would you know?

    28. Re:more leaks by jimrthy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Compare what happened after 9/11 with the burning of the Reichstag. And what happened afterward. The parallel isn't perfect, but it's about as close as repeating history ever gets.

      The federal government has been systematically destroying freedom in the U.S. for the past 100 years (at least). There have been a few advances, but, even with them, the government usually manages to take away at least as much as it gives (the civil rights movement led to things like enforced political correctness, busing, and racist hiring quotas).

      It probably isn't fair to call America's government "Nazi," but it's well on its way to fascism. (And, no, fascism really isn't all that different from socialism...it's just one logical step further along the road back to feudalism).

      "Foaming-at-the-mouth" lunacy doesn't really do any good to promote the cause of freedom. But I can understand the GP's frustration. I can't understand your complacency/collusion at all. Then again, America's always been an uneasy alliance between people who want to be free, the ones who want everyone to be slaves, and the ones who are determined to master everyone else.

      Maybe it's time to admit that that alliance has failed, split it up, and go our separate ways. While we can still do so peacefully.

    29. Re:more leaks by fahlesr1 · · Score: 2

      Is there a PURPOSE to the Constitution and what IS the purpose? Isn't the purpose of the Constitution to LIMIT the gov't in what it can do?

      The purpose of the constitution is clearly outlined in its preamble:

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      I suppose one way to paraphrase that would be to say: "We the people, in order to get along and not mess with each other, and protect ourselves when necessary, establish this Constitution so we have an orderly way to resolve conflict."

      If the commerce/welfare clauses allow the gov't to do whatever it wants, what is then the real purpose of the Constitution and why not just say: gov't can do whatever the fuck it wants and be done with the pretenses?

      That's just the thing isn't it? The commerce clause doesn't give the government unlimited power, it has however been twisted and bent and used by the government to justify assuming more than its Constitutionally granted power. It is entirely our fault as citizens though. The US, at least for now, is still a government "Of the People, for the People and by the People." We got what we voted for, sure we were lied to, but we didn't care enough to take action. Its much easier and more entertaining to watch our favorite sports team or cheer for our favorite American Idol contestant.

      At the end of the day the Constitution is just a piece of very old paper. It only has power if We the People enforce its rule, by force if necessary. I think we could still turn things around without violence, for now.

      The US government as it is today is not the government that is outlined for us in the Constitution. It is vastly more powerful, you are right. As it is today the government can basically do what it wants. I hope we stop distracting ourselves long enough to fix that.

    30. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first I reacted like you. But I stopped and thought 'is he right?'. He might be?

      Strip away the holocaust and racial hatred and you see the US gov doing many Nazi like things. Such as socialized healthcare. Taking over large companies 'they are too big to fail'.

      While the 'nazi' term may be slung around like crazy and in many cases is misused. In many cases he may be right. In many ways Nazism is a form of Communism. Thought they would be loathed to admit it.

      Read this and ignore the racial hatred bits (as that was just the justification for doing what they were doing, ie not our fault we are screwed up it is some race/group doing it). You will see many things that people are saying today.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Ideology

    31. Re:more leaks by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You're only going to be satisfied with some Libertarian utopian society. You need to learn to deal with the real world, rather than what you want. Compromise.

      No. We just want the 10th Amendment to be followed. It's there for a reason.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    32. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

    33. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your shit sandwich you lemming.

    34. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're almost onto something there, but try posting next time *before* you go sniff Ayn Rand's asshole and get all confused.

    35. Re:more leaks by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      ...sometimes taking on this impossible fight makes previously impossible things possible.

      Unfortunately that is a door that swings both ways. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on copyright infringement has certainly opened doors for making things possible that were once thought not to be.

      Heroes may not compromise with injustice, but injustice is more than happy to compromise with everyone else.

      --
      ~X~
    36. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Excessive solitary isolation is defined as torture by several agencies, including the United States government (but only when other countries do it). Manning's confinement is particularly abusive - exercise and sleep in his cell are prohibited. Go read Glenn Greenwald's work at Salon, he has a list of citations.

    37. Re:more leaks by jbengt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry to break it to you, but the Constitution doesn't give anyone rights, on US soil or not. It enumerates certain rights, it lists certain limitations and powers of the government, but, as the Declaration of Independence states, people are ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . . "
      If you still don't believe it, see Amendment 9 : "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    38. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you're a veteran, you are not a "peer" to judge Manning.

      WRONG. The military is there to serve the people, not the other way around, and the people are correct in judging anything they do. To believe otherwise is flying in the face of everything the US was allegedly founded on.

      Now, if you want to make the case that a person who is not/has not been in the military is not familiar with certain things that make them participating in adjudicating charges error-prone, I can believe that. That sort of thing has been a problem for people with specialized knowledge in lots of areas when involved in legal proceedings.

      So, if you want to figure out whether or not he broke the law/rules/his oaths, etc. then I agree that a military person has a better perspective. If, however, you want to judge whether what he did was right or wrong, any citizen can and should do that and should not be told to keep quiet about it.

      Worship of the military and elevating those in it above others has absolutely got to stop. Those who serve honorably should be thanked and respected for the difficult job they do and the sacrifices they make, but they are NOT above everyone else. Blind obedience to anything, including oaths and superiors, is stupid and very dangerous in a complex world, especially for people with access to lots of weaponry. Whether "this kid is a disgrace to his uniform" or not rather seems to me to depend on what he actually did and what his motives for doing it were, which would be a lot easier to figure out if anyone ever gets the ability to ask him those questions in public.

    39. Re:more leaks by LVSlushdat · · Score: 2

      I sure wish I had modpoints!! You have summed up the condition of this government more eloquently than I've heard in a LONG time! Since you mention Irwin Schiff, I was at his trial here in Las Vegas several times, and heard the judge tell the jury that they were REQUIRED by law to find Irwin guilty, and if they didnt, they would be guilty of a crime THEMSELVES!!. Jury instructions like that I would have expected to hear in some of the old Soviet Union's "kangaroo court" trials, NOT in America!! If there EVER was a time for Jury Nullification, that WAS it...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    40. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we can't be losing freedoms because my party is in power, legislating the things I agree with!! Yay!!!! Go team!!!!

    41. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can find parallels between the US government and any other thing you want, good or bad. And the phrase "that's as close as it gets" is bullshit. Make a good comparison between the horrors of the Nazis, including the attempted extermination of the jews and gypsies, political purges, mass torture, etc, and then reasonable people might listen to you. Screaming "Nazi!" where there is none to bring the specter of fear is no better than the ones you argue against.

      Like someone above said, "you're batshit insane."

    42. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the main goal of the Nazis under the rule of fuhrer was to rid the planet of Jews.

      The numbers of Muslims and Arabs in the current world is much higher today, than there were Jews during the Nazi regime, but the parallels are right in front of your eyes. Just because you do not recognize them does not diminish the significance of what is taking place.

    43. Re:more leaks by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      But why would you discard the general sentiment that is increasing in the political scene in US towards the Muslim population?

      After all, Jews then and Muslims now, they are all still Semites.

    44. Re:more leaks by couchslug · · Score: 1

      You mention Private Manning. Citation needed.

      Where have his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice been violated? He hasn't been tried yet, so where, precisely, has his right to a fair trial been violated?

      Have some UCMJ:

      http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    45. Re:more leaks by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      He is sitting in solitary confinement for over 200 days now, 23 hours a day he is alone, he is explicitely forbidden to sleep or exercise during the day, he is given 1 hour of 'exercise time', when he can walk around in a circle for that one hour.

      That is torture, and it is designed to break Manning to make him come up with various false allegations against Julian Assange, so that Assange could then be charged with some conspiracy against the US gov't.

    46. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god damn George Bush!! How many of our freedoms does he think he can take away before people revolt??

      Oh, wait, you say Obama's president now? Well then everything's fine. Go back to sleep.

      fnord

    47. Re:more leaks by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Nazis had a bunch of goals related to destroying specific groups of people (like Jews), how far fetched is it to look at the politics and wars of USA today and draw parallels between Nazis exterminating the Jews and the overall anti-Muslim ideology that is now dominant in the US politics?

      Nazis, they are reminding me of Nazis. They are Fascists somewhat, Fascists at least had labor unions electing top management of corporations from the most outstanding workers and have them represent the corporations in the gov't. In USA today there is no such democratic system in the corporate world - the CEOs and other management is NOT elected democratically from the company workers.

    48. Re:more leaks by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Nazis were aiming to destroy specific groups of people based on their ethnicity/religion. US is aiming at some very similar goals in the similar parts of the world even with similar people, just because those people are also not the best friends of Jews doesn't make the situation much better.

      Sure, USA is not aiming at total annihilation of Muslims, but that maybe only because there are so many Muslims in the world.

    49. Re:more leaks by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      All seems wonderfully noble until you realize they were not impossible fights -- by the prima facie fact of having been won -- and, barring becoming human barbeque, which quite arguably is the ultimate act of losing, "winning" requires compromise. In the case of Mandela, what could be a clearer act of compromise than Truth and Reconciliation? An uncompromising victor simply would have necklaced the lot of the bastards in the National Party.

      "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." --Bertrand Russell

    50. Re:more leaks by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      In recent years, we’ve learned quite a few of our elected representatives not only think being fondled is no big deal, but they either like being fondled by other men or like to fondle other men themselves (while publicly stating that homosexuals will burn in hell to boot). It is no surprise that many of our security measures call for hot man on man fondling action.

    51. Re:more leaks by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Laws like the US Patriot Act, organizations like the TSA, and wars like Iraq are ill-conceived and ineffective; they are not part of an evil master plan to subjugate Americans or take over the world.

      Don't be a fool. Apparent intent is meaningless, effect is all that matters.

      "Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    52. Re:more leaks by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

      Come on, you know how this works.

      Although he did violate the Secrets Act (or whatever you Yanks call your version) there's evidence of a more serious breach there. Now I'm just a humble military contractor, so all I know is how to handle detailed drawings of military vehicles in a blend of commercial and military environments. With my work history, I know enough to ... let's just say that if I was a Bad Guy then it would be a very interesting day if I snapped.

      Before I start, thank you for your family's service. I hope that you never have to use any of my work, but if you do I promise that it will work flawlessly the first time. I take my work very seriously, knowing that people who are braver than I am are depending on it without a second thought. My family has a long history of military service.

      First, to access Classified documents you generally require a separate computer on a secure network. Your personal laptop isn't going to cut it. You have to work in a special room (Van Eck) so you don't have Bad Guys reading your communiques. Usually these rooms are guarded with guys with weapons. They will ask questions like "who the fuck are you?" and "get the fuck out of here!". You see, I obviously have a clearance or I couldn't do my job. However, just because I have a clearance doesn't mean that I can read any document I choose. I have to have a need to know. If it's not something I'm working on I don't get to know anything about it at all, and that's the way I like it.

      You also have to have someone else in the room with you precisely to avoid this kind of thing. Remember the signs from the nuke bunkers: "Men alone will be shot!"? That's how seriously they take security. Well, no, not really. That's maybe for show or for NATO 3 ATOMAL stuff. In real life they understand that sometimes buildings burn down. "In the event of a fire, try to lock up the documents but your safety comes first. Security breaches can be remedied afterwards." And these are things that would fuck up a lot of people's daily lives if they got out.

      So, the questions that you really have to ask are:
      1. Where was the Security Officer?
      2. How in the ever-loving fuck did he get a DVD-R in there? Secure computers usually have the drives disabled or removed because THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN COPY OR READ FROM. You can't copy these documents because they are LOCKED DOWN. Seriously, if people came in with guns and demanded copies at gunpoint, I couldn't do it. I'd want to because of my lead allergy, but I just couldn't.
      3. Would it be trivial for me to set up a network where one could read but not copy documents? Wouldn't the Army do that same trivial thing to their own secure network?
      4. Aren't all environments with Classified documents certified before they can be used?

      So a guy that we've never heard of, a PFC no less, gets into a secret network, bypasses all the security, makes a copy of a bunch of files, and then is "disappeared" for a year where nobody can see him, not even his lawyer.

      No, totally not suspicious at all. It's like they're depending on people not knowing how secure networks and secure equipment works in order to distract us from something...

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    53. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      As long as we let them write

      Who is this "they"? Those are people like you and me, they just happened to go to law school and become politicians.

      The only way to get enough power to make any sort of effective change

      Good! It should take a lot of work for people to get enough power to make any sort of effective change.

    54. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      How is that relevant? What "degree of evil" would you assign to the current actions and with what justification?

    55. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nelson Mandela was/is a terrorist communist.

      He should never have been lauded as some sort of hero, but should have been left to rot in that jail cell forever!

      Just ask his victims...oh, that's right...they're all dead!

    56. Re:more leaks by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You are pretty much a douche-bag AFAIC, and a terrible one at that.

      The guy did not sign up to be tortured by his own gov't without any indication that he is actually guilty of anything, and in fact, he hasn't signed up to be tortured by his gov't period, and people should not ever expect to be tortured by their gov't, well, unless of-course that's the kind of gov't we are talking about here, (and it looks like you are all for it, douche-bag), but that's exactly what the US is NOT supposed to be about - torturing people.

      Of-course this has been lost now for decades.

    57. Re:more leaks by Tom · · Score: 1

      Nice argument, but your premises is wrong.

      You assume that "evil" always has to mean a big master plan. Why should it? Just like corporate culture comes into being in the interactions of people within the company, so most real-world evil comes into being not inside one humans head, but between humans. It is rarely human beings that are evil, more often than not it is the systems they create that are evil. You can see this clearly in how most evil comes to pass when the humans involved can hide their personal responsibility behind "duty" or "honour", "faith", "patriotism", "needs" or "external pressures" or whatever the bullshit bingo word of the year is.

      And fighting politicians and lobbyists via the democratic means is stupid at best. You are engaging the home team on their home turf in their favourite game. How many generations do you think it will take to take back our government that way?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    58. Re:more leaks by Tom · · Score: 1

      Also, fuck dignity, it's in the name of security. If you can't stand a single ball grab then you don't deserve to ride in a plane.

      You make that decision for yourself, I will make it for myself, thank you. You don't have a say about my dignity. That is what dignity is about, troll.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    59. Re:more leaks by Nyder · · Score: 1

      ...Dividing the world into "good" and "evil" is empty demagoguery.

      Plus the various religions already have that angle.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    60. Re:more leaks by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Also, fuck dignity, it's in the name of security. If you can't stand a single ball grab then you don't deserve to ride in a plane.

      Every time I see someone say that I remember someone who is beloved by a large number of republicans. John Wayne. Would he let some smelly fat man give his coin purse a jingle?

      As rumors say John Wayne was gay, who knows who he let "give his coin purse a jingle".

      --
      Be seeing you...
    61. Re:more leaks by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 1

      Also, fuck dignity, it's in the name of security.

      For you, today, "enhanced patdowns" don't cross the line.
      Where would you have drawn that line 5 years ago?

      Where will you draw it 5 years from now? 15? 50?

    62. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obvious that you don't realize that republicans were the first to call out the Obama administration on this blatant violation of the 4th Amendment of the constitution.

      As evidenced by this story it appears that now if you challenge Janet Napolitano (of the Obama administration) you will be threatened (and silenced)

    63. Re:more leaks by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      As long as we let them write

      Who is this "they"? Those are people like you and me, they just happened to go to law school and become politicians.

      I probably wouldn't be so angry if they were actually lawyers who read the laws they were voting on and had some vague sort of right to an opinion.

      But, for the most part, they aren't. All they care about is getting re-elected. So some corporate law-bot (who's been buying meals for "our" representative and finding cushy jobs for his relatives, etc, etc) hands "our" representative a bill, and that's the one that gets presented to his committee.

      The only way to get enough power to make any sort of effective change

      Good! It should take a lot of work for people to get enough power to make any sort of effective change.

      It should. Except that, really, it only takes a ton of money for a corporation to drown out the voices of people who want meaningful change.

      You know. Like those people who elected Obama.

      I'd prefer that the people who just want to be left alone (you know...the mainly silent majority) be allowed to have their voice heard.

    64. Re:more leaks by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      Fine, stick him in with the general population in a military prison. Problem solved...pretty permanently.

    65. Re:more leaks by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      Libertarians who say "no government" actually mean "no government, except for law enforcement, that enforce laws that we speficially agree with, the rest of you don't matter"

      FIFY

    66. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compromising with evil makes you an accessory to evil.

      they are not part of an evil master plan to subjugate Americans or take over the world. And if you treat them like that, you can't effectively work against them.

      Fine. Compromising with stupid makes you an accessory to stupid.

    67. Re:more leaks by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly, you're an idiot for raising this argument. As a parallel: the Nazi's killed some 10 million people in their extermination camps. All those people died completely legally under existing German law at the time.

      If the UCMJ allows this kind of torture, it's the UCMJ that is at fault. And trying to argue or even imply that it is therefore fully OK to treat Pvt. Manning this way is barbaric.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    68. Re:more leaks by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Exercise and sleep are prohibited? What fairy tales have you been reading? Good God - some of you fools will believe ANYTHING if it is spoonfed to you by people who hate the United States.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    69. Re:more leaks by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Dude - if you're not a veteran, you are not my peer, and you are incapable of judging me, or my peers. That's just that simple. There is a REASON that from time immemorial, soldiers and warriors were judged by soldiers and warriors. That reason is - you are not equipped to judge us. BTW - who said anything about blind obedience? Do you have any idea how SOP is developed? How the General Rules were formulated? Blind obedience? I hardly think so. Lt. Calley's trial and the various defenses used by his subordinates debunked that "blind obedience" nonsense. I stand by my statement. If you're not a veteran, you are not my peer.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    70. Re:more leaks by thijsh · · Score: 1

      I believe there is no evil master plan, but the system is corrupt in such a way that any person in the system is capable of (unwittingly) participating in evil deeds. So the degree I would assign is probably oblivious participation in evil. You can't really hold those people accountable for the evil they are involved in, but you can hold them accountable for choosing to remain oblivious for the ramifications of their actions.

      So you were exactly right about your examples, but the consequences of it are undeniably evil... the people who wrote that law, work for TSA and fight in Iraq are not inherently evil... Sometimes far from it! But it really takes a special kind of awareness not to participate in one way or another with those kinds of evil. We need to identify and fight the true culprit, the corrupt system, and not the scapegoat individual of the day, who are merely a symptom of whats wrong on a larger scale.

    71. Re:more leaks by thijsh · · Score: 1

      Uncompromising and unforgiving are two very different things... And if the do or don't of a single persons actions means the end result happens or doesn't it's safe to say it's impossible without someone standing up and taking action first. Please try to realize that without heroes some fights are utterly hopelessly impossible. It's easy to look at it logically in retrospect and say that it obviously was possible because it happened... but would anything have happened without true heroes standing up? I know it's speculating but I'm willing to bet that if everyone was a mindless drone no revolutionary advances of society would ever have been made.

      Oh, and I fully agree with that quote especially because I don't regard myself as a static unchanging personality and my beliefs constantly evolve... But I can respect people who do die for a noble cause.

    72. Re:more leaks by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      In your ranting you might have overlooked a key factor here. When you join the military you agree to waive civilian rights and accept the UCMJ and the subset of rights it allows. Manning is being detained under provisions of the UCMJ that allow what is happening. You might argue that he can't surrender basic rights by joining the military but he can and the supreme court has upheld the UCMJ numerous times. In fact in battle the UCMJ allows things like drumhead trials and field executions. In addition simple things like criticizing the current president can get you court martialed. In some aspects the UCMJ has stricter controls on the government and in others it allows more abuse, but the Supreme court has upheld the UCMJ and the ability of an enlistee to waive their rights and accept the UCMJ.

      The key point here is, if you don't want to abide the UCMJ don't join the military. Manning was a member of the military and allegedly disobeyed an order. That makes him susceptible to military justice, not civilian justice.

    73. Re:more leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was in a deployed environment. Lots of rules go out the window. 'nuff said.

    74. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      The TSA is a nuisance, but I don't see how you can call it "evil".

      And in what sense is the Iraq war "evil"? Many more people would probably have died over the last decade if Saddam had stayed in power, not because of WMD but because of his usual murderous activity.

    75. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer that the people who just want to be left alone (you know...the mainly silent majority) be allowed to have their voice heard.

      Nobody is keeping them. They stay "silent" because they are reasonably happy.

      You know. Like those people who elected Obama.

      I elected Obama. For a country that elected Bush before him, he is a reasonable compromise between the different parts of the electorate.

    76. Re:more leaks by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      They stay silent because they're terrified of the military. They hope they're dead before the accountants show up.

      Bush and Obama are both in-your-face big government statists.

      The "two" parts of the system haven't changed. There are the people who want to live free and live their lives in peace. And there and the people who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

      The Revolution and the Civil War were fought over those principles.

      Personally, I don't want to see us all go through that again. I'm not sure it can be avoided. But I'd much prefer that we all just decided to stand up and declare our freedom.

    77. Re:more leaks by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      US courts have ruled that it is.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    78. Re:more leaks by thijsh · · Score: 1

      This is not the exception, but the rule... Given the 'right' circumstances any person is capable of evil deeds such as this. This happens faster and easier than most people like to admit...

      And you won't convince me that the Iraq war is morally just because Saddam was evil... Two wrongs don't make a right, the fact that he was an evil dictator was a convenient excuse but not a valid reason by far.

    79. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      This [wikipedia.org] is not the exception, but the rule... Given the 'right' circumstances any person is capable of evil deeds such as this. This happens faster and easier than most people like to admit...

      What does that have to do with anything? If you fight wars, people will do these things. If you have orphanages, boarding schools, and prisons will do these things. That doesn't make wars, orphanages, boarding schools, or prisons automatically evil.

      (And, no, I don't think "any" person is capable of doing that. A large percentage of the population is, but some percentage of the population just says "no".)

      And you won't convince me that the Iraq war is morally just because Saddam was evil...

      It's you who is reasoning in meaningless abstractions like "evil", not me.

      Saddam killed a half a million people over the decade before the war. The war likely resulted in many more people surviving than if he had stayed in power. That alone is justification enough.

      The fact that Bush lied, that his motivations may have been different, etc. is irrelevant. You could say the same about WWI and WWII, and US participation in those wars was still both just and beneficial.

    80. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      They stay silent because they're terrified of the military. They hope they're dead before the accountants show up.

      You're paranoid. Fear of the US military is about as far removed from American's day-to-day lives as the fear of being hit by a meteor.

      The "two" parts of the system haven't changed. There are the people who want to live free and live their lives in peace. And there and the people who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

      Well, and you are obviously in the latter category, while most Americans are in the former.

    81. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      You assume that "evil" always has to mean a big master plan.

      I don't "assume" that; I was responding to a specific post in which the examples were all part of an evil master plan.

      It is rarely human beings that are evil, more often than not it is the systems they create that are evil.

      The system of American democracy is not evil. Even the system of German democracy is not evil (although less democratic).

      How many generations do you think it will take to take back our government that way?

      You are German, so please be clear about which government you want to take back. You don't get to take back my government, thank you very much.

      And fighting politicians and lobbyists via the democratic means is stupid at best.

      Are you planning a revolution? Or what?

      You are engaging the home team on their home turf in their favourite game. How many generations do you think it will take to take back our government that way?

      It's the teams people vote for. Short of putting a gun to people's heads, the only way you can change things is by changing people's minds. You can do that by going into media, creating a foundation, and doing a lot of other things other than becoming a politician. And lots of people have, in particular in the US.

      Of course, in Germany, you face powerful state media, an unholy monetary and propaganda alliance between church and state, and stifling of free speech through an assortment of anti-free-speech laws. That's why Germany has been behind the US in terms of civil rights and freedoms. But German propaganda works so well, most Germans don't even realize it.

    82. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Don't be a fool. Apparent intent is meaningless, effect is all that matters.

      And the effect of TSA is slightly more trouble at the airport; not exactly evil.

      The effect of the Iraq war is that an murderous dictator has been removed from power, more people are probably alive today than if Saddam had stayed in power, and Iraq has a chance at democracy (whether they take it is up to them). Not evil either.

    83. Re:more leaks by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Note that I include the police when I mention the military. They've turned into the "standing army" the Founding Fathers were so afraid of.

      Just because most people don't think about their fear doesn't mean it isn't there.

      Maybe I am paranoid. Feel free to prove it. You could try exercising your Second Amendment rights. Maybe grab a hunting rifle and spend an afternoon strolling around Manhattan?

      I don't care how other people choose to live their lives. But it disgusts me that so many other people expect me to join them in their sheep-hood.

    84. Re:more leaks by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Note that I include the police when I mention the military.

      No, you didn't.

      They've turned into the "standing army" the Founding Fathers were so afraid of.

      No, they haven't. Police and military are deployed under very different legal frameworks.

      Maybe grab a hunting rifle and spend an afternoon strolling around Manhattan?

      Well, I for one am glad that people like you can't do that.

      But it disgusts me that so many other people expect me to join them in their sheep-hood.

      But apparently it doesn't disgust you to benefit from the enormous wealth generated by their mutual cooperation and trust. If you don't like it, there are plenty of places you can go and carry your gun openly. Why not go there?

      People's basic needs and desires in the US haven't changed: they want peace, safety, food on the table, and some entertainment. And they don't want to think about government too much. If it looks like there's a threat, they want their government to take care of it. The US is, and has been, powerful enough to deliver this, and governments have mostly done that. The best you can do is slowly convince them that some things that they used to think are threats really aren't.

  7. Classic TSA by RenHoek · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The TSA is clearly a firm believer in security through obscurity.

    1. Re:Classic TSA by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The TSA is clearly a firm believer in security through stupidity.
      Fixed.

      --
      BM3
    2. Re:Classic TSA by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      More like insecurity through absurdity.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    3. Re:Classic TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA is also a firm and round believer in security through obstruction.

    4. Re:Classic TSA by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hey, if it works for Apple...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  8. Re:Land of the free. by santax · · Score: 1

    I didn't try my spelling correction, that is certain. Damn. Shut. Should = shut.

  9. Doh by imthesponge · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What would you expect if you purposefully published the flaws in your company's security? "Oh, you silly goose!"

    1. Re:Doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is more than publishing the flaws.

      It's about exposing the farce that is TSA's security theater.

    2. Re:Doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except the pilot is not working for the TSA, he is working for an airline.

      And let's put it in another perspective: TSA is not a company (correct me if I am wrong), it is public: which means he is informing the owners of the company (the public)
      about a problem with the management (the TSA policy makers).

    3. Re:Doh by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      That depends. If the security flaws were previously unknown outside my company, I'd expect to lose my job. But if I was pointing out what the whole world already knew, I wouldn't expect reprisals. Then again, I've always worked for at-least-somewhat-reasonable companies, not the 'batshit insane', (as one other poster put it), US government.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    4. Re:Doh by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      The first sentence of the summary contradicts that. He does work for the TSA.

    5. Re:Doh by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not quite. He was publishing the flaws in a company (=airport) his company (=air line) delivers services to (=services).

      Subtle but important difference. When I'm dealing with a company, especially if it's a fed owned company, I expect them to be able to deliver the goods and services they promise. If their security is actually just security theater that makes my job harder without increasing security altogether, I will inform my superiors and if they don't care, inform the owners of the other company.

      In case of a government "company" (afaik TSA is), this is the public.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The public has known about these flaws since before Die Hard 2.

    7. Re:Doh by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      But if the policy is not to reveal details about security, and you do exactly that, then saying "But but everyone already knows!" isn't going to be much help.

    8. Re:Doh by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      ...TSA is not a company (correct me if I am wrong), it is public: which means he is informing the owners of the company (the public)...

      Nonsense. You don't get to just waltz into a military base and take a tank out for a ride, because you "own" it.

      Perhaps collectively, you could say that the public owns everything that government does. But as individual private citizens we don't own government. We only determine it. It's independent of us, while being subject to our approval. Your right to information about the TSA's operations is limited to the FOIA. No more, no less.

      This pilot was acting as an individual, not in an official capacity which would require him to report his concerns to his supervisors. He was not "whistle-blowing" because, as you pointed out, he was not speaking out against his employer. More than that, his speech is probably contractually limited based on his access to security protocols, in which case he's may have breached that trust as well as actual security. It's nice to see people standing up to government, but it's not certain that this man was doing the right thing.

    9. Re:Doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first sentence of the summary contradicts that. He does work for the TSA.

      No. He doesn't work for them he used to help them. In the line of can you keep an eye on the kids while you clean the floor.

    10. Re:Doh by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Your right, we should just make everyone sign a contract. That way if one of us spots danger/deception we cant spread it to the other people. I mean one small group of powerful individuals should be allowed to deceive us and pulling the blanket off of another's eyes is tantamount to treason.

      The only question I have is if we have to wait till after the trial to string him up? Hes so dangerous as he is now. /sarc

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    11. Re:Doh by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      The TSA isn't his company, in the sense you mean. Sure, in a sense, both the TSA and his company are organs of the federal government. But, theoretically, at least, they have a separation of concerns.

      This is more along the lines of filming cops abusing suspects and then getting arrested for breaking wiretap laws.

    12. Re:Doh by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Your attitude is a perfect demonstration of pretty much everything that's wrong with America today.

      We don't "determine" government anymore. We pick between a few identical sock puppets every 2 or 4 years, then we get entertained by the circus (if we pay attention at all) of deciding which sock puppets we're going to choose between next time. All while they continue to destroy freedom.

      We're only free as far as we act as individuals. As long as we accept being members of a collective, we are the collective's property.

    13. Re:Doh by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Yawn.

      Then stop voting for those sock puppets and bitching about how somebody else is at fault for what's "wrong with America today."

      If ever there was something needing a -1 Redundant, your post is it, Jim.

    14. Re:Doh by Ramley · · Score: 1

      Chances are that your company does not need to protect the lives of all of the people who pass through it.

      If this was the case, I can guarantee you'd have the government all over you, making sure what you were doing was safe, etc. You'd have to reveal everything you were doing (and not doing) to protect your customers to the government. The government would turn around and either allow you to continue,or they would shut you down if they felt your security wasn't doing enough.

      You bet we should know all of the flaws and we should know exactly what we are getting with the TSA.

      The government can question our methods, and expose our weaknesses in the name of safety, but we can not do the same to the government? It seems that this is where America was different, and it allowed us to thrive.

    15. Re:Doh by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      I would expect that if multiple people had pointed out multiple flaws over several years and still nothing was done about it, that broadcasting it to everyone would be a SERVICE so that others would be aware of the RISKS and DANGERS being ignored by those who are supposed to be protecting them. The TSA's response is exactly the OPPOSITE of what it should be and reveals the TSA for what it is; a quasi-tyrannical organization more concerned with getting money than supplying actual security.

      The TSA is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country.

      --
      ~X~
    16. Re:Doh by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      Your right, we should just make everyone sign a contract.

      1) It's "you're", as in "you are".
      2) You can't force people to sign contracts. He did so of his own free will. He didn't have to accept being deputized, and he could have found a different place to get a gig as a pilot.

      ...blah blah blah...

      3) Uh-huh...

      Hes so dangerous as he is now. /sarc

      4) It's not him who is the concern of the TSA, it is his action of revealing possible security holes which is the danger with which the government must be concerned. If you want to talk about how this is only "security theater" that's fine, but what does liberty have to do with this matter? Note that he has not been arrested, or even detained for questioning. What trial are you talking about? What treason charges have been brought? Your grip on reality is what you should be concerned with.
      5) You're a jackass. You should get that checked.

  10. Take Note by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Other countries take note: this is what happens when your country just rolls over and lets the terrorists win.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    1. Re:Take Note by nettdata · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with terrorists winning, and everything to do with people who are friends and associates of those that are in power, taking advantage of a fictitious threat scenario, and cashing in on it. It's greed, plain and simple.

      Idiots are getting more and more power granted to them, and making more and more cash in the process, all for dealing with this "threat" that they've manufactured. They will do anything and everything they can to perpetuate it, as long as they retain and grow that power base and make more and more money.

      Security Theatre relies on keeping the public ignorant of what the real threats are, and of the proper ways to deal with them.

      And the morons in charge are making laws to protect themselves and keep it all going.

      The real terrorists are running the show.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    2. Re:Take Note by Suzuran · · Score: 1

      There is no skinny man behind a curtain pulling levers and pushing buttons, there is ONLY the GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ!

    3. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other countries take note: this is what happens when your country just rolls over and lets the TSArrorists win.

      FTFY

    4. Re:Take Note by Ant+P. · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with terrorists winning, and everything to do with people who are friends and associates of those that are in power, taking advantage of a fictitious threat scenario, and cashing in on it. It's greed, plain and simple.

      I think you'll find that's the textbook definition of terrorism.

    5. Re:Take Note by nettdata · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might want to buy better textbooks.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    6. Re:Take Note by Elbereth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know. bin Laden knows what he's doing, and his greatest weapon is fear. Fear drives people to act irrationally. What he wants is for the United States to become so fascist that the people outright rebel against it, causing civil war and the destruction of the USA. Were I in his place, I wouldn't be so optimistic. I doubt that people will engage in outright rebellion until it gets so bad, they can't even watch their television in peace. Also, even *if* the USA (as we know it) is destroyed, something very similar will probably take its place. It's not like we're suddenly going to become a feminist, socialist technocracy or an Islamic republic. We'll probably just rewrite the Constitution slightly and abolish a few of the worst aspects of today's government, then go on doing whatever it is that we were doing previously. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

      Anyways, even if bin Laden is a bogeyman and our own government was behind 9/11 (or they consciously hijacked the tragedy for their own ends), it doesn't really change anything. The end result is the same. Fear, pseudo-change, and a new boss. Note that I'm not anti-Obama. I like Obama as much as the next guy who's apathetic about politicians and their promises. I just don't think that anyone who runs for political office can/will have much ability/desire to change the status quo, despite promises made. I meant "pseudo-change" in more of a grand sense, like how the French keep rewriting their Constitution and instituting new Republics. It's just the same old crap, under a different name.

    7. Re:Take Note by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Ah, the believable, sane version of the "truthers": "or they consciously hijacked the tragedy for their own ends." Politicians are explicitly good at that sort of thing -- hijacking events which impress upon the public for their own advantage.

    8. Re:Take Note by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      What did Bin Laden want? According to any government information I'm aware of, he hates us because of our liberties and our freedom, he wants us to fear and cower and strip us of our western way of liberalism and that "American way of life".

      Mission accomplished, I'd say.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Take Note by corbettw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If we do get to the point where we rewrite the Constitution, we need to put some teeth in that sucker. For instance, establish a points-based system for unconstitutional laws. If a law is overturned as being unconstitutional, every member of congress (both the House and the Senate) gets one "point". Get to 10 points, and you are automatically barred from reelection or holding any kind of elective office, ever again. Get to 15 points and you're kicked out of office before the expiration of your current term. As it is now, Congress can pass all the fucked up laws they want with no danger of being called to account for it.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    10. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! It will allow me, Adolf Hitler IV to take over and exterminate the Muslims for causing all this. The Muslims are causing all of our problems: economic, political, social,etc....

      No disclaimer. Interpret this post anyway you want to: satire, serious, joke, etc.....

    11. Re:Take Note by Nursie · · Score: 1

      If revolution really takes hold in the US you'll want to get out, fast. The weak will hand over their power, possessions and freedoms to those they see as strong and who promise to lead them.

      The US south would become theocratic, the North and coastal regions, who knows. But if the people depose the current government structure, don't think for a second a better one will come into place without years of strife and bloodshed.

    12. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with terrorists winning, and everything to do with people who are friends and associates of those that are in power

      I don't understand the diff...

      The real terrorists are running the show.

      ...ah, I see we're on the same page after all.

    13. Re:Take Note by alexo · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with terrorists winning

      Yes, it does. As you said yourself:

      The real terrorists are running the show.

      Regarding the rest of your post:

      Idiots are getting more and more power granted to them, and making more and more cash in the process, all for dealing with this "threat" that they've manufactured. They will do anything and everything they can to perpetuate it, as long as they retain and grow that power base and make more and more money.

      They are not idiots. They are very smart, devious and thoroughly evil.

      Security Theatre relies on keeping the public ignorant of what the real threats are, and of the proper ways to deal with them.

      They are the real threats. As for the proper ways of dealing with those threats, I think you already know.

      And the morons in charge are making laws to protect themselves and keep it all going.

      "Idiots", "morons"... You are making the same mistake again.
      Do not underestimate your enemy!

    14. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what if the law is just in a grey area? Shouldn't the voters, not the judges, decide what is constitutional? Or do we want a judge-run dictatorship.

    15. Re:Take Note by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I would be terrified of what'd be in the Constitution if we re-wrote it today.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    16. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err... Bin Laden is not issuing a campaign of terror because he hates American freedoms. He couldn't give a toss about what freedoms might or might not exist in the US. The suggestion that he is in his cave going "Grrr... those pesky Americans. How dare they have freedoms!" is one of the biggest myths spun by governments.

      What he does care about is US foreign policy (government and business hand in hand) in the Middle East -- particularly its support of the Saudi regime, and also the whole Palestinian mess.

      The argument that "the terrorists have won" is a useful one to counter the nonsense of "all in the name of security". But it's not terribly accurate.

    17. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be much happier with a system that gives laws an expiration of not more than 5 years and laws have to be actively renewed or they go away- and require that down to the state level. Then our congresscritters could still be fighting for something without having to be fighting for stupid or insane laws for the sake of showing progress. Also, any law that is covered by another law should be stricken- like all this "... but on the internet" business. Lastly, laws need to be applied to the context for which they were written- it should not be possible to "find something" to charge someone with or use say a wiretapping law against someone with a dash cam when no wires were tapped- and being charged with 16 different laws that all sound about the same is just bullshit to extend sentences. Seems like there should be some sort of a way to specify maximums per type of law or something.

    18. Re:Take Note by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      I admit I'm more than a little curious as to what Jamie Hyneman came up with during the Alaskan cabin fever bit.

      Also, points for saying batshit crazy lies to the media. (Also, points to media businesses that repeats said lies and for making their own. You know, "government takeover of healthcare", FEMA interment camps, all too common errors in which party denotations are reversed a la whatshisname's page scandal http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010 .)

    19. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which liberties of ours does he hate exactly?

      I'm thinking 2 types:

      1. Those that he thinks are setting a bad example leading to moral decadence
      (We don't keep our women in burqas... how could we be so shameless!)

      2. Liberties in the sense of feeling free to run amuck in other countries pulling coups like the one that put Saddam in power, the one that took him out of power and the coup we pulled in Iran.

      Why does Iran hate us so much? After we pulled a coup and installed a puppet leader, they had a revolution to get rid of him. The current ruling party is in office on a "freedom fighter, we'll stand against American oppresion" platform. We've been their bogeyman for decades now. Everything we do in the middle east now (getting rid of Saddam, staying in Iraq) is evidence of our terrorism against them.

      (Constantly sending aid to their sworn enemy, Israel, isn't helping either.)

      If he wants to force the world into Sharia law, f him.
      If he wants a world free of pulling coups and murdering en masse for financial advantage, that I can't fault him for, but he better see that the war on Israel is more of the same.

      Then again, can you expect any logic from people who worship the "god" who destroyed all of Sodom and Gomorroh except for one family... Even if you accept that EVERY SINGLE ADULT in the town was deserving of death, what about their kids and babies? Why wasn't a fleet of angels (or followers of God from another town) mobilized to save the innocent? (I seriously doubt in a town of sin and debauchery that there was ANY lack of kids.) Those who can rationalize away the recurring "kill every last living thing" episodes, who consider it ok to punish person A for person B's deeds which A had nothing to do with lack the moral compass to properly run a society. Unfortunately we have those same attitudes here, not just accepting Sodom and Gomorroh but calling on us to find and murder our gays and to nuke the whole of the Middle East, including those countries that never raised a finger against us just to make an example of them.

      I used to be outraged by how the Constitution was trampled, but looking at it now, which is worse, how government is run now or how it would be run if the "nuke-em-all" crowd got to start playing around? Within 5 minutes the ICBMs would be on the way to make the Middle East glass, within 10 they'ed be incoming from Russia, China and possibly Europe to turn us to ash.

      For all our love of "Christian" values, we don't seem to put much stock in love itself. Perhaps if the most vocal "Christians" remembered to keep their speech Yay Yay and Nay Nay, perhaps if we took an example from the Amish who live completely different from the rest of the country yet don't live in constant strife with their non-Amish neighbors we could learn Christianity as Jesus taught it, which is nothing like "practiced" locally.

      The same applies to Islam, but it's on shakier ground. While Jesus preached love, if you look at the rise of Mohammed, Islam looks suspiciously like a sham religion founded solely to advance his aims of conquest. Kids there are taught "hate the evil Jew and the evil American" instead of "hate the evil Jewish and American governments, disobeying the wishes of their people and lying about what they're doing". Likewise, we need to realize that like us, most Muslims are just trying to provide for their families, not conquer the world. The whole of the crap between the US and the middle east is our politicians vs theirs each seeing what they can get away with and damn the will of the people. Left to themselves and not explicitly taught hate, neither of us would care about each other. When's the last time you complained about those dirty, rotten Belgians?

      Even if we start doing everything right today though, it'll take years for the problems to go away. As mentioned above, the only thing keeping Iran's government in power is hating us. They'll manufacture incidents and blame them on us to stay in power. (Or Israel, who is c

    20. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't the voters, not the judges, decide what is constitutional?

      Sure. We could go back to the good old days of no equal rights, no civil rights, prohibition, and blacks counting as 3/5 of a person. Brilliant!

      The tyranny of the majority must not be underestimated.

    21. Re:Take Note by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Um, dude, we pretty much have become a "feminist socialist technocracy." Those people running for office have managed some serious, meaningful changes. Like bringing us back to the brink of feudalism.

      There's no reason to re-write the Constitution officially. Federal judges have already rewritten it into meaninglessness. For all intents and purposes, it has ceased to exist.

      Keep on enjoying your TV. America had a pretty good run, but apathy destroyed it.

    22. Re:Take Note by jimrthy · · Score: 2

      According to his manifesto, he wants us out of the Middle East. And he wants us to quit resisting Sharia law.

      So the government propaganda is partially truthful, but still strongly slanted.

    23. Re:Take Note by toby · · Score: 1

      they consciously hijacked the tragedy for their own ends

      That part, at least, is proven.

      The whole world (particularly the huge swaths of it blasted to bits without any justification, not to mention those kidnapped, detained, tortured, and killed in custody without justification) still waits for a credible explanation of all that happened on and after 9/11, and why.

      --
      you had me at #!
    24. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the solution is to give appointed-for-life Supreme Court justices the power to kick out lawmakers who are locally elected for 2- or 6- year terms?

      Yeah, that'll stop the concentration of power.

    25. Re:Take Note by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      The problem with the idea of rewriting the Constitution now is that we've spent so long being brainwashed with the idea that we need a strong federal government that the vast majority of it believe that it's a good thing. They just disagree about which parts of our lives it should control.

      We could put some teeth in it with an amendment, but what are the odds of getting it past? Any sort of total re-write would just wind up as a power grab. Just like the Constitution gave the federal government far more powers than the Articles of Confederation.

      The Federalist Papers made some very important points. They feared the states were on the verge of war with each other. They pointed out the anarchy that Switzerland had experienced for so long. They were pretty firm in their stance that no federal government was possible without all the powers granted by the Constitution.

      Of course, they were just marketing materials. They were far too optimistic about Americans paying attention, standing up for our rights, and jealously guarding our freedom. And the Anti-Federalist Papers prophesied that we'd wind up exactly where we are today.

      It's just that, in light of what they wrote, it seems kind of ironic that Switzerland is, today, perhaps the model of what freedom's all about. (Or at least as close as we'll see in our lifetimes).

    26. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get to 10 points, and you are automatically barred from reelection or holding any kind of elective office, ever again. Get to 15 points and you're kicked out of office before the expiration of your current term.

      Careful what you wish for... The result would likely be that no judge would ever find a law unconstitutional again.

    27. Re:Take Note by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 1

      bin Laden knows what he's doing, and his greatest weapon is fear.

      And surprise!

    28. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa cowboy. He hates the US because we FUCK with other countries for no good reason. (ei: WMD, nukes, Oil interest.. . .etc)

    29. Re:Take Note by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "I meant 'pseudo-change' in more of a grand sense, like how the French keep rewriting their Constitution and instituting new Republics."

      I was reading up on this recently. Note that all these rewritings/institutions have been the result of overthrow of the existing government by war or coup (which happened quite a lot in France in the last 200 years). Working backwards:

      * Fifth Republic (instituted 1958, currently in force) -- Triggered by coup of army near end of Algerian war for independence from France. Fearing abandonment of Algiers, the army invaded French Corsica and drew up plans to assault Paris if the government did not step down and turn over control to De Gaulle (seen as pro-army and anti-Algerian independence), who then rewrote the Constitution. See: "May 1958 Crisis/ Algiers Putsch".
      * Fourth Republic (1946) -- Necessary after Nazi Germany took control of France in WWII.
      * Third Republic (1870) -- Overthrow of Emperor Napolean III's "Second Empire" (losing Franco-Prussian War, Siege of Paris, etc.)
      * Second Republic (1848) -- After 1848-1852 revolution to overthrow Napolean's "First Empire".
      * First Republic (1792) -- Reign of Terror, destruction of monarchy.

      Etc., etc. So my point is that France doesn't just "rewrite the Constitution" like it's a polite intellectual exercise -- It's the result of a continual series of ferocious, bloody conflicts where people are getting killed and sequentially enslaved by tyrants, and having to re-fight for their freedoms. In short, I would not want to see that (violent tyrannical coup) in my lifetime in America.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    30. Re:Take Note by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Shouldn't the voters, not the judges, decide what is constitutional?

      Why would you need a Constitution at all with such an approach? If the legislature can just vote in anything they like under the grounds that popular mandate gives it "constitutionality", then you have parliamentary supremacy in practice, British-style. This is precisely what the US founding fathers wanted to avoid, hence the whole "checks and balances" thing.

    31. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice. So what happens when the red party packs the courts with partisan hacks and filibusters all the blue party's nominees? Do the blue party's legislators get kicked out of congress?

    32. Re:Take Note by Tom · · Score: 1

      Something like this has recently been discussed in Germany, where we are starting to get the same problem. Our supreme court is striking down law after law - that used to be a very, very rare event.

      The discussion was short. The media and the politicians silenced it.

      I'm 100% with you, except that I'd put the limits a lot lower. I'd say that at 3 unconstitutional laws, you deserve an investigation by the Verfassungsschutz (a police-like investigation unit specialized on anti-constitutional crime) where your immunity is automatically voided for this investigation, and at 5 you should lose your job and your pension.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    33. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There needs to be a clause that closes loopholes that politicians use to get around the constitution before a points system would be effective. It needs a clause that says that if a law even seems like it might be unconstitutional it is by that virtue alone.

      Also, 15 points is way too high to trigger removal of an official. More like one point barring you from holding office in the future, two points causes you to loose the ability to address the house, three points earns you immediate removal and you are then tried for a new crime: Second Degree Treason

      Second Degree Treason would be the crime of trying to undermine the US constitution. To be convicted it would require that the individual or group in question would have either direct influence over the US government by means of public office, or indirect influence through lobbying and evidence of conspiracy to pass a law which would circumvent any part of the constitution. It would not, however, cover plans to amend the constitution itself. Constitutional amendments would require complete documentation of all actions involved in bringing the amendment into law and anything that may indicate the amendment is related to another law that was deemed unconstitutional would be all the grounds needed for the to reject the amendment, a power that the supreme court would be given.

    34. Re:Take Note by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

      Lost my mod points yesterday. Dayum.

      --
      "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    35. Re:Take Note by jyx · · Score: 1

      I don't know, bin laden sounds like just a poor little rich kid with a lot of charisma, free time and shoulder chips. I don't think he has a real plan beyond what any angst ridden 17 year old who just wants to fuck shit up has. Sure he can be attributed with the deaths of a couple of thousand people and a few big arse buildings, but from all that has happened and reported I doubt he is some super Dr evil mastermind. (Note: I do not mean to belittle that event in any way - I would have been 100% with the US if on that day they carpet bombed the major Afghanistan cities out existence and took it over as the next US state)

      I would be very surprised if he (BL) had envisioned the flagellation the US is currently applying to itself. I personally think you credit him with to much imagination.

      "Fear, pseudo-change, and a new boss" - Bang on the money. Its not bin laden, its the same fuck heads that have been fucking their fellow man over and over again since the start of time (A good example: The SF Bridge - the dude selling the wires was replacing them with cheap arse crap after that trucks rolled by the inspectors - didnt matter that he was endangering the lives of thousands, just that he could make a quick buck)

      The big problem now is that this bastards are making the rules or/and have most of the money and I don't know what to do about it either.

      Wot a bummer of a thought for the day. Fuck it, I'm off to eat left over plum pudding and brandy custard with my family when they wake up from the mid afternoon snooze.

      Merry xmas all - try not to loose that tiny spark of rebellion (Unless its heartburn)!

    36. Re:Take Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that there have been no train, bus or truck bombings in the USA in 9 years shows that terrorism in USA is not real at all.

      US-based Islamic fundamentalists have participated in attacks in other parts of the world (David Coleman Headley) but nothing on American targets. Another is "Jihad Jane" type nutjobs. This shows that Muslims living in USA can lose it or get motivated into terror.

      But none of them has attacked any where in such a huge country. But we've got sons of global bankers taking ammo in their underwear (Abdulmutallak). And then you get nude scanners installed.

      What does this tell you? Coincidence?

    37. Re:Take Note by Geminii · · Score: 1

      I'd make it that the point system applies to whoever was in Congress at the time the law was passed who voted for it. No point in penalising those who tried to vote against it originally or those who came along after it was made law.

      However, I'd also have time limits on laws. New laws could only be valid for 12 months. Laws could be "refreshed" for 3 and then 12 years using the same process as passing a new law, but any alteration would define it as a new law, not a refresh. 12 years per refresh would be the maximum. Any congressperson who had been there for 12 years would therefore have voted on every law on the books at least once (unless they abstained).

      I'd also make the points system apply to retired Congresscritters. Get to 10 points, even after retirement, and you lose your pro-rated pension and any other financial perks. Get to 15 and you lose everything, including secret service protection.

      However, an unconstitutional law's date of applicability would only be the most recent time it was successfully refreshed. If a law stood for 50 years and was then struck down, only the politicians who voted on it at the last refresh would get a point against them.

  11. Good thing by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a good thing those terrorists are stupid enough to document all of their pre-attack planning on Youtube, otherwise we'd never catch them...

    Security through absurdity, America's greatest weapon again terrorism!

  12. Can the Streisand effect hurry up and get in here? by a+Flatbed+Darkly · · Score: 1

    I was unable to locate the video in question, so I assume it's been taken down, and, sadly, and somewhat surprisingly, appears not to have been reuploaded.

  13. Question Authority... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet another example of that old saying:

    Question authority and Authority will question you!

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Question Authority... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There's another saying, I hope it doesn't get lost in translation: If you plan to say the truth, be sure you have a fast horse waiting outside the saloon.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Question Authority... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      That made me imagine a chaps and spurs wearing Assange strolling into a saloon, causing the piano music to suddenly stop...

    3. Re:Question Authority... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes. The Jakov Smirnof Corollary.

    4. Re:Question Authority... by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1

      And I picture those chaps strolling by themselves into the saloon. You could call them Assange-less chaps. *ducks and runs out of the saloon to a fast horse*

  14. Biometrics by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    Ground crew have privileged access to secure areas of the airport that demands more security, not less. Make them do an iris scan and enter a passcode in addition to swiping their badge.

    1. Re:Biometrics by AGMW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ground crew have privileged access to secure areas of the airport that demands more security, not less. Make them do an iris scan and enter a passcode in addition to swiping their badge.

      Unless the ground crew also go through the wonderful new nudey-scan machines (or are otherwise touched up and fondled) EVERY TIME they cross into air-side then there's a glaring hole in the process! Any one of the ground crew could be turned (I've got your daughter and you will carry this item through and hand it to my partner air-side) or simply go postal, or be a long-time plant or sleeper, which means they MUST be subject to searches to prevent them from carrying any of the otherwise disallowed items air-side. Hell, they don't even need to be suicide jockeys they can just plant the stuff for the suicide squad to pick up once they clear the security theatre as regular passengers!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    2. Re:Biometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, they don't even need to be suicide jockeys they can just plant the stuff for the suicide squad to pick up once they clear the security theatre as regular passengers!

      Hollywood has had that be part of the plot of enough terrorist/hijacking movies, especially from the 70s and 80s, that you'd think that would have been the first thing they did for security. But, no.

    3. Re:Biometrics by Dachannien · · Score: 2

      Okay, then. Anal probes for everyone!

    4. Re:Biometrics by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      C'mon, think like a terrorist for a moment and realize that planes are safe from terrorist attacks, at least for now.

      Why?

      Because that's where you'd expect them to happen. And surprise is not only the most powerful weapon of the Spanish inquisition. One key element of terror is that you are not supposed to know when it strikes. That's one crucial part of it, maybe the most important one. Else it's just yet another mass murder. It's terror because it creates fear, not only because it creates a lot of bodies.

      To instill terror and fear, people have to feel insecure. And what would instill more terror and fear than being struck where you do NOT expect it? Blowing stuff up in airports where "security conscious" (to be nice and not say hysteric) people are already uneasy doesn't increase the terror a lot.

      Blowing up a shopping mall right before Christmas would have had a MUCH bigger impact! It's unexpected and it hits where people are relaxed and happy.

      That's where you have to strike as a terrorist. Not where everyone's just waiting for it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Biometrics by Ismellpoop · · Score: 1

      Its more like "Excuse me sir drop your pants, lift you sack, bend over and smile." Why can they search you in jail without x-rays and ball groping? Oh and they make you open your mouth and lift your tongue. All without touching you.

    6. Re:Biometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But can they hit the spot while doing it?

  15. The Emperor has no clothes on by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow. Airport 'security' is a joke, and almost everyone knows it; a Google search for "security theater" turns up over a half-million results. Yet this guy tells us something that we're all aware of already, and gets put throught the mill because of it. It's bad enough when people get crucified for revealing some hidden truth, but when it happens to someone who is simply stating the obvious, that's just sad.

    Just what ARE we paying these clowns for anyway? They should go back to allowing knitting needles on planes; pissed off Grandmas would probably deal with terrorists a whole lot more effectively than these clueless idiots.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:The Emperor has no clothes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knitting needles up to 10 inches long ARE allowed on planes, so are scissors with blades of less than 4 inches. But oh noze if you bring a boxcutter with 1/2 inch of razor blade that shows.

    2. Re:The Emperor has no clothes on by Angel+of+Woe · · Score: 1

      Considering the TSA has never actually dealt with a terrorist I'm pretty th grandmas allowed up to ten inch knitting are in fact more effective already.

    3. Re:The Emperor has no clothes on by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Of all America's sources of power, the only one that saved any lives on 9/11 was passengers. Passengers stopped the shoe bomber.

    4. Re:The Emperor has no clothes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a Google search for "security theater" turns up over a half-million results

      Sadly, a search for "security theatre" only gets 139,000.

  16. So i love the sarcastic comments by wesleyjconnor · · Score: 1
    and I agree the things the TSA are doing seem ridiculous, but whats the answer to these problems?

    What are you going to DO about this

    1. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by panda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm going to do the same thing about it that we do about the 40,000 odd traffic fatalities every year: Nearly nothing.

      We don't invade privacy and remove freedoms because so many people die in traffic accidents. Why should we because of some vague "terrorist" threat? Honestly, airport security never has and never will stop a determined terrorist. We need to simply have an adult conversation with the American people and perhaps increase the educational investment in mathematics education. Perhaps, if they understood statistics a bit better, then they wouldn't run around like idiots demanding that something be DONE about what amounts to a non-threat.

      Yeah, I know....

      --
      Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
    2. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by 1s44c · · Score: 3, Informative

      What are you going to DO about this

      I'm not go to America. Yeah I'd love to go there for sightseeing or a shopping trip but there is no way I want to be involved in any part of this security theater.

    3. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, I do the same thing, so far I've passed up two opportunities to go to the US in the last year, I also work in Airport Security and work with bureaucrats in my own country to ensure they don't implement crazy ineffective bullshit like other orgs overseas.

    4. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      We don't invade privacy and remove freedoms because so many people die in traffic accidents.

      But we will.

      Some politcos are reportedly trying to force auto manufacturers to include rear-view cameras on every new car sold in America. Once that's in place, how long do you think it will be before they're required to install cameras on all four sides of the car, and record video 24/7? 'If it saves only one life', etc.

      Now, as someone who does his best to drive safely, I can see that having video of some tailgating idiot crashing into my car could be a good thing when I want to prove the accident wasn't my fault, but I still wouldn't want to be spied on in that way all the time.

    5. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by starless · · Score: 1

      You're distorting what's actually happening.
      The NHTSA is going to require installation of rear view cameras (no recording).
      This is expected to reduce the number of children killed because they're in a blind-spot when someone reverses.
      There might be an argument over whether this is cost-effective or not, but you'd need to look at the research literature to be able to tell about that.

    6. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are incorrect about numbers. 40,000 people die in road crashes. Almost half of them are caused by drunk or otherwise impaired drivers. There are 20,000+ murderson the road each year. But don't worry, we'll all collectively just go WAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA CAN'T HEAR IT!!!! WAWAWAWAWAWAWA

    7. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't? There's some pretty fucked up laws in the name of stopping speed-related, red-light-related, and alcohol-related fatalities. Same erosion of rights, perhaps more acceptable to most people though because its more subtle? Go a step further on which rights you hold dear and you'll get outraged at licensing, registering, and insurance requirements and how those laws "to protect the people" are frequently used for profiteering and screwing with people the government feels like screwing.
      Captcha: Squirmy

    8. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But america is trying to force its "Security" practices on everyone.

    9. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      You appear to be unaware of the "slippery slope" concept. Let me try to help.

      Today the NHTSA will require that new vehicles have a single rear mounted camera for reversing.

      Specifically, we know that the cameras don't record video today. But an SD card slot on the board is probably $1, and the SD card itself $5 in bulk, so "For just $6, we can guarantee that we have video evidence if someone reverses over a person - if that saves just one life it's worth it". The upshot is now the reversing camera records the last 24 hours of reversing video with a time/date stamp.

      Then we get "But that only shows the REAR of the car, what happens if the car sideswipes a child?" Well that's OK, "For just $12, we can guarantee that we have video evidence if a car slides into/sideswipes a child on a bike - if that saves just one life it's worth it". The upshot is now the new side cameras record the last 72 hours of side-on video with a time/date stamp.

      Finally someone points out that it's possible to just run over a poor child, so "For just $6 more, we can guarantee that we have video evidence if someone drives over a person - if that saves just one life it's worth it". The upshot is now the complete set of cameras records the last 168 hours of all-round video with time/date stamps.

      Next step: Record the driver at the same time and now you can prove who was responsible for killing the poor innocent child. Won't you think of the children? For just $6, we can make sure that the horrible child killer is brought to justice!

      And that's the slippery slope. See how it works?

      Funny thing is ... I went and looked up this NHTSA organisation (I'm Australian, this abbreviation was unfamiliar to me). They already have a campaign for "the faces of distracted driving". So ... for all we know, internally they could be sliding down that slope (or another one) ...

    10. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by Tom · · Score: 1

      Same here, and with many people I know. And we're not just talking about sightseeing. I turned down a lucrative speaker engagement for top oil execs a few years ago. Friends of mine in the security industry avoid the US. I even know about a yearly conference that has re-located outside the US.

      But, the US is a huge country with huge amounts of international ties, in the big picture, these are just drops in a bucket.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:So i love the sarcastic comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than this.

      I am a robotics researcher and because of all the stupid stuff going on I no longer write papers for conferences held in America. I am also not going to apply for a job there, though there are many interesting companies. So this security theater is having an impact (I'm sure I am not the only one) on much more than tourism.

      Unfortunately the next ICRA (International Conference on Robotics and Automation) is being held in China where I would rather not go either...

  17. Open Season! by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

    For the new US national sport: Shooting the messenger.

    --
    The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
  18. Solved with dogs by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How much of this security theater can be solved with a bomb-sniffing dog? Instead of checking each new thing for a bomb and still not being able to find them, a dog can just smell the explosive wherever it happens to be hidden. But no, we don't want to do that, that's too obvious, cheap, and easy. We'd much rather have a 1000x more expensive, incomplete and cumbersome solution.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Solved with dogs by thijsh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Real reason: Dog's are unpatentable.

      So you hit the nail on the head, exactly *because* these measures are 1000x more expensive is why they are being pushed... The smell of fear smells like profit to some.

    2. Re:Solved with dogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real reason: Dog's are unpatentable.

      Yet...

    3. Re:Solved with dogs by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Dogs seem to be mostly used for security theater themselves. Their false positive rate is probably too high for widespread use (though useful when an excuse is needed to scrutinize an individual), and the TSA doesn't seem like a very good source of people who could become handlers.

    4. Re:Solved with dogs by jimrthy · · Score: 1

      Well, that, and the fact that dogs are effective.

      Every once in a while, they have to let some non-threat like the underwear-bomber slip through, so they can justify tightening up the net. It's all about keeping the sheeple terrified.

      It has absolutely nothing to do with keeping people safe.

    5. Re:Solved with dogs by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Well, you also forgot to mention that in some cultures the use of dogs is highly offensive. And we don't want to offend anyone, do we? Better to use clothes-penetrating, high resolution X-rays and tight groping, much less offensive...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Solved with dogs by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Real reason: Dog's are not foolproof.

      They have to be trained to understand that certain smells are bad and to indicate this to their handlers. Bomb making and materials are a dynamic enterprise. A dog might smell a new material but not understand it. However, a machine might show a human an anomaly and it could raise a red flag.

      I certainly get your point about profit, greed, and corruption here in pushing all the equipment, but I don't see dogs are a perfect solution here either.

    7. Re:Solved with dogs by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Other reason: Dogs and their handlers are not cheap labor. Sure, they're cheaper than the scanners in the short term, but if you keep them on extended contract they'll demand better pay and benefits because they're skilled labor-- unlike the monkeys operating the scanner.

      So, if they go with something tried and true, they'll be accused of frivolous government spending. If they cut costs in labor and trump up security theater, they're accused of incompetence. IMO they should fire their monkeys and hire a bunch of trained pros with bomb-sniffing dogs, but the Feds have already jumped into bed with the security theater corporations years ago.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    8. Re:Solved with dogs by winwar · · Score: 1

      "A dog might smell a new material but not understand it. However, a machine might show a human an anomaly and it could raise a red flag."

      Sorry, but dogs are better than the machines. Because the machines have to be trained too. Plus you still have to depend on the human to catch the anomaly. And you just can't do that as a human. Screening is boring. In any case, your basic screening (metal detectors) has been sufficient to prevent any explosives of sufficient quantity to down a plane from entering via passengers.

      We use machines because we love technology. Rather than what works best.

    9. Re:Solved with dogs by ziggyzaggy · · Score: 1

      You've convinced me. We should use pigs; they have more developed sense of smell anyway.

    10. Re:Solved with dogs by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I agree - pigs or dogs. I have no problem with either, and if your religion makes such animals "offensive" - suck it up.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  19. Don't compromise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You don't need to bend over, Jack. Why don't you just secede? It's perfectly legal, and there's plenty of poeple already moving along that road: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Recent_efforts_in_the_United_States

    As a foreigner, I believe this is the only possible road for redemption of the former "land of the free and home of the brave" - the Russian Soviet Confederation was dismantled, the Chinese Confederation will be broken up too eventually, but the USA is the one most badly in need of an enema.

    And just think, you don't even need to take up arms to do it...

    1. Re:Don't compromise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      secession is pointless, after all a government is a reflection of the people it governs. The fact of the matter is we asked for this government. The only way to change the government is to change the people first!

    2. Re:Don't compromise ... by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ROTFL did "we"?

      Do you mean in the purely participatory act of choosing which collection of puppet figure heads we wanted?

      This government was formed by the aristocracy for the aristocracy for one purpose... to make the peasants FEEL like they have a voice, and basically, to use the same logic that you just did to shut up and take whatever they give us.

      At least state government is small enough for the people to have some effect on them, if still not much. Secession would go a long way towards making the governments actually listen to the people

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Don't compromise ... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      As long as you keep a system alive where the choice is the turd sandwich or the giant douche because any other choice you could field has no chance to be heard, there's little hope that even if you trade the people for some that are smart would change much.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Don't compromise ... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Don't compromise ... by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      Secede? I don't think so. The minority is the problem. The majority don't need to secede. We just need to expunge the bad element.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:Don't compromise ... by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      At least state government is small enough for the people to have some effect on them, if still not much. Secession would go a long way towards making the governments actually listen to the people

      Secession would not be necessary if the Feds followed their own rules, specifically the 10th Amendment.

      There are some things that only the federal government can do. Everything else should be up to the states.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:Don't compromise ... by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but the majority of those failed, and there is this quote from the Wikipedia entry:

      In November 2006, the Alaska Supreme Court held that secession was illegal, Kohlhaas vs. State, and refused to permit an initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote. The Alaskan Independence Party remains a factor in state politics.

      Interesting to note that where the populace voted in majority FOR secession, the local government blocked those decisions.

      The people does not seem to hold the power any more.

    8. Re:Don't compromise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should make the "bad element" wear a star on their clothing so we can easily identify them?

    9. Re:Don't compromise ... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just secede? It's perfectly legal

      You clearly did not even read the article you linked to. Secession has never been "perfectly" legal, and by most accounts, it's unconstitutional. In 1869, the Supreme Court held that secession from the Union by a state is not legal. This was one of the causes of the Civil War - the North was enforcing the idea that it was not legal for the South to secede.

    10. Re:Don't compromise ... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Interesting to note that where the populace voted in majority FOR secession, the local government blocked those decisions.

      Where did you get that idea? It certainly wasn't from Wikipedia:

      [T]he Alaska Supreme Court held that secession was illegal, [...] and refused to permit an initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote.

      Did you even read the sentence you quoted? It could not have been voted for by the majority, because it was never put to vote in the first place.

    11. Re:Don't compromise ... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      The US Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession from the Union is impossible and that any law or resolution passed by a state declaring unilateral secession would be absolutely null. Dissolving the Union would require revolution or the consent of the states to dissolve the Union.

    12. Re:Don't compromise ... by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      My comment and the quote was not related. Cut the attitude a bit mkay? I can see how you thought they were related.

      As for your "It was not in Wikipedia" here ya go:

      There was an attempt by Staten Island to break away from New York City in the late 1980s and early 1990s, leading to a 1993 referendum, in which 65% voted to secede. Implementation was blocked in the State Assembly by assertions that the state's constitution required a "home rule message" from New York City.[40]

      The San Fernando Valley lost a vote to separate from Los Angeles in 2002 but has seen increased attention to its infrastructure needs.[citation needed] Despite the majority (55%) of the valley within the L.A. city limits voting for secession, the city council unanimously voted to block the partition of the valley north of Mulholland Drive. If the San Fernando Valley became a city, it would be the seventh largest in the United States, with over one million people.

      Cheers for eers.

    13. Re:Don't compromise ... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      So despite the context being an initiative for the state of Alaska to secede from the Union, you were actually referring to two attempts by small areas in entirely different areas of the country to secede from the cities they were currently in?

      It should be noted that state secession from the Union is an entirely separate issue from that of an area trying to secede from a city without seceding from the state or country.

      I think you need to figure out how to communicate.

    14. Re:Don't compromise ... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Don't make this a race issue. I was referring to the people at the top who are making our lives miserable.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:Don't compromise ... by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      Look, I am an adult, with children. And it seems, if I am correct, so are you.

      I do not need to learn how to communicate, I do it quite well. I'll admit that my OP is not a good example of that.

      The point I am (was) trying to make is that even though people voted for secession, the vote has been blocked.

      The piece I quoted points out that a supreme court can (has) vote(ed) that secession is illegal.

      Where does this leave the populace choice wise? If they were to decide to secede, they would be breaking the law. If they decided that being part of the United States was bad for them would they need to force secession via popular uprising since the legal route has been removed from their options list?

    16. Re:Don't compromise ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Secession would not be necessary if the Feds followed their own rules, specifically the 10th Amendment.

      But why would they, if they're powerful enough to ignore them?

    17. Re:Don't compromise ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just secede? It's perfectly legal

      Last time a bunch of states tried that, they were forced back in line by force of arms, you know?

    18. Re:Don't compromise ... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      If the majority of the populace of a city or state wants things done differently than it is being done, then maybe they should try to make that happen, rather than skipping ten steps all the way to secession.

      The best solution is not secession, it's for people to, you know, run for office themselves and get things changed. It's how the government is designed to work. If nobody in that majority is willing to run for office, what makes you think things would be any better after a secession?

    19. Re:Don't compromise ... by ziggyzaggy · · Score: 1

      That in no way is a valid argument against secession. A seceding entity need not care what the Supreme Court's opinion is. Since our federal government is already committing far more grievous transgressions against the life, liberty and security of the people than England did in the 18th century, a similar declaration of independence is of course justified.

    20. Re:Don't compromise ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chinese confederation ? a confederation is when a group decide as free nations to come together , bringing nations together by war is an empire ,it eventualy turned to a country following 5 western nations banning up to invade (the opium wars) and the japanese invasion . China as we know it was there before civilisation in Europe and it will be there after the fall of europe and the states for the simple reason that they own your dettes , america and europe is china's tennants

    21. Re:Don't compromise ... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Dissolving the Union would require revolution or the consent of the states to dissolve the Union. Withdrawing from it would be within the powers of each state that signed into the union in the first place. You do realize that even after the union was created when the constitutionally-required minimum of nine members joined, there were some states that were still independent (that is, ran by the Articles of Confederation)? There was no obligation on any state to join... you didn't have to join the club, but you wouldn't get the benefits of being in the club. The states created the union and not the other way around, and no one can sign into a binding agreement forever, that's slavery (how ironic).

      Also, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Supreme court. The Supreme Court is just one element of the system that interprets and (supposedly) enforces the Constitution. All the Supreme Court does is say we won't allow any convictions of this law, or hold any person guilty relating to it, etc. The law still stays on the books!

  20. WTF is with these people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like the internet is the perfect forum for attention whores. Because, that's all this is, another asshole looking for his 15 minutes. I' m sure there was a better way of going about this, but he just could resist the call of seeing his face on the interwebs. He is now probably now fucked for life in the US as he may be put on some sort of "list" making his traveling life more difficult, and his job no more. Oh well, the world needs ditch diggers also.

    1. Re:WTF is with these people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in Aviation Security (Thank god not in the US) and the TSA is the poster child of not having effective processes and procedures for stakeholders such as Pilots, Ground Crew, Retail Operators etc. to report security issues and problems in a manner where they are given due attention. What else are they suppose to do?

    2. Re:WTF is with these people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100 per cent.

      How DARE he expect a rational policy? How DARE he expose what is not only a waste of time, but effort and money that has gone on for years and is only increasing in speed and expense. No, once these Dunning-Kruger-types have been spoken to rationally and they refuse to change their ways, they deserve to be ridiculed.

  21. Not to make them feel protected at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The purpose of the theater is to make the public fearful, not protected. Our government needs a fearful public to enable the erosion of public rights. We gave up a bunch of rights with the Patriot Act that we would never have tolerated the loss of without the "it's for your protection" lie. TSA is part of the cover for this lie and others.

    1. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does both. It gives those that didn't consider it a problem the idea that there is one (else, why would they search everyone like crazy) while at the same time calming those that are already properly hysteric (and make them feel protected by their wonderful government).

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by joebagodonuts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a CYA move "Look! We are doing everything we can to protect American lives." As far as any negative consequences? Well, as an elected official I would rather cover my ass from criticism than actually do the hard things. Hard things take time and I'm forced to focus most of my time on getting re-elected these days.

      Security Theater is a good compromise. /sarcasm

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    3. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by rikkards · · Score: 1

      And this is the biggest reason for term limits. If the politician knows he can only be around for a period of time then he would be more likely to focus on the issues than his potential political career. At the least it should be a limit on consecutive terms.

    4. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      actually it would be better if you served in any public office to be baned from working anywhere near it once your short one or two term stint is up. otherwise we get the revolving door system we have now where a public official caters to a private company that deals with the government over the people who elected him simply because he has worked there in the past and will work there again once his term is up.

      to be realistic though nothing like that will ever happen till the current system dies, to many invested interests to keep this system going despite the massive good it would do.

    5. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by writeRight · · Score: 1

      Are you an actual elected official or just pretending?

    6. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Politicians come and go, but bureaucrats stay forever. They're the real evil. Lifetime jobs with little chance of getting fired, high pay, generous retirement and health benefits, and all they have to do all day is make our lives miserable.

    7. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the point of the 'overkill' response against this man for doing the right thing is not simple mindless bureaucracy, but an intentional point to remind him(and us) who has the guns. Of course it is all wrapped up nice and neat with legal hearings, court dates and official papers and uniforms, but it is no different than the mafia sending a couple of thugs to a mans house to scare him a little. The US government will not tolerate people acting to hurt their authority over us. They will prove who is in control.

    8. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by semicolon_underscore · · Score: 1

      It does more than both. The actors in this theater are (a) numerous and (b) paid. Imagine the unemployment numbers, if all the TSA drones, their managers, and their managers - who are either unwilling, unqualified, or not lucky enough to be employed in a value-producing operation - were let go.

    9. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Bureaucrats won't be given nearly as much power once the politicians know that they aren't the ones driving anymore.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    10. Re:Not to make them feel protected at all by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      Nope. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night...

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
  22. Makes no difference by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The point is not about the information being public. The point is about the public being aware of it. The TSA exists so that the general public will feel like they are being protected from dangerous terrorists when they travel.

    If you are in a big city, take a look around, especially in busy areas. On one side, you see the things the public is supposed to see: storefronts, public transportation, police officers, SWAT teams that just sort of stand around, etc. On the other side, you see service entrances, maintenance corridors, and unlocked doors labeled "DO NOT ENTER." The general public is kept on their toes by constantly having reminders that they need to be protected pushed in their faces, and scary-looking people with guns and dogs do a good job of that (as do enhanced pat-downs, apparently). The fact that a determined terrorist could sneak past all the security is pretty much irrelevant.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Makes no difference by jimrthy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I think the point is to condition us to get used to intrusive "security" measures. Then turn it up another notch and take away a little more freedom.

      Rinse and repeat.

    2. Re:Makes no difference by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      "SWAT teams that just sort of stand around," Where the hell are you that you see SWAT teams just hanging around on the street?

    3. Re:Makes no difference by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      That’s a good question. Personally, I’d be inclined to call the police and inquire about random dudes wearing SWAT gear and carrying guns on the street with no apparent reason to be there.

    4. Re:Makes no difference by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      A drill somehow equates to SWAT teams "that just stand around"

      Drama queen much?

    5. Re:Makes no difference by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they're there all the time, but people (I don't know if they're SWAT teams or not) with M4 assault rifles regularly just stand around in some places in New York - I saw them in front of the NYSE on a few different occasions that I've been there on weekdays. It's a little fuzzy but I think I may have seen some in Washington as well.

      Here's a photo of a cute girl posing with a police officer in SWAT gear in front of the NYSE, here's a photo from LIFE showing a patrol of police officers with M-14s literally just walking around on the street, and an image search along the lines of "police at new york stock exchange" will yield you plenty more.

    6. Re:Makes no difference by 4phun · · Score: 1

      That’s a good question. Personally, I’d be inclined to call the police and inquire about random dudes wearing SWAT gear and carrying guns on the street with no apparent reason to be there.

      Here in Atlanta GA it is common for the drug crowd to dress up like SWAT and take out a rivals base of operations in a fake police raid.

    7. Re:Makes no difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are in a big city, take a look around, especially in busy areas. On one side, you see the things the public is supposed to see: storefronts, public transportation, police officers, SWAT teams that just sort of stand around, etc.

      I'm not from the USA, and I'm curious... are you exaggerating there for the sake of the argument, or do you really have SWAT teams just "sort of standing around" there? I live in a big city, and it's unusual enough to even see regular cops, at least in the areas that I frequent.

  23. Every Effort by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    No expense or effort must be spared in burying the truth. The truth must be obscured under all conditions. There is nothing worse than truth bursting out. Freedom of suppression, the right to suppress the truth, must reign supreme.

  24. Mod parent up! by khasim · · Score: 1

    Bomb sniffing dogs are effective, efficient and can be trained by many different companies/organizations.

    Scanners are expensive, inefficient but can only be supplied by a few companies.

    Follow the money.

  25. tERRORism by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    Somewhere in all this talk about tERRORism there is a larger, hidden problem. It's plain before our faces, but most of the prominent stakeholders in the debate seem oblivious to it. But it is of capital importance that we find ways to bring this root problem out in the open and deal with it.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  26. Sensible response from former AA CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The response of former American Airlines CEO Bob Crandall is beacon of sensibility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q--wMv0FAc8

  27. Good-bye, cell phone by JustDisGuy · · Score: 1

    FTFA: "Late last month a 50-year-old pilot, who asked that his name and the airline he works for not be made public, took a series of videos with his cell phone to show major flaws he says still exist in airport security systems."

    Who wants to take bets that cell phones will now be required to be stowed in checked baggage, due to the "security threat" the camera phones pose?

    --
    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
  28. TSA = Drag on the economy by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

    I would love to see a true cost / benefit analysis of the TSA.

    Costs $ billions.

    Cuts productivity of business travelers.

    Dissuades casual travelers from taking vacations.

    Increases airfare.

    Decreases the flight hours of cockpit crews.

    Degrades morale of customer-facing airline workers.

    --
    Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    1. Re:TSA = Drag on the economy by tompaulco · · Score: 0

      Just down the road from where I work, there is a Christmas display in the front yard of a business on a quite major thoroughfare. There is a Santa getting haslled by TSA agents, and several child manikins dressed only in disheveled skivvys.
      I'm surprised the business owner hasn't been arrested. The sad thing is, he is only exaggerating a little bit.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:TSA = Drag on the economy by tompaulco · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should look at this from a different angle. Sure, security theater does nothing to protect us from terrorists, but it does make (some) people feel more secure. And surely security theater is cheaper than ACTUALLY protecting us from all possible threats. Every time somebody points out another flaw in the current security theater, they have to spend money to shore it up to actually protect us from the threat. Surely it would be cheaper for us to just have cheap smoke and mirrors security with no pat-downs, no ax-searches, no anal probing, and we just stop pointing out all the ways that a terrorist could make it through?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:TSA = Drag on the economy by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      Just down the road from where I work, there is a Christmas display in the front yard of a business on a quite major thoroughfare. There is a Santa getting haslled by TSA agents, and several child manikins dressed only in disheveled skivvys. I'm surprised the business owner hasn't been arrested. The sad thing is, he is only exaggerating a little bit.

      I want pictures!!!

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    4. Re:TSA = Drag on the economy by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Pictures anywhere? Name of business? I really want to see this before it hits its head on a bullet.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:TSA = Drag on the economy by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Due to overwhelming (2) requests, here is the video.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  29. Huh. Nobody *I* know is running around asking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that something be done. I wonder just who those people are.

  30. Well at least they protected his name by budgenator · · Score: 1

    let's see

    The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified.
    He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.
    He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.Sacramento-area pilot punished for YouTube video

    The sad part is it's probably more likely that two pilots have the same name then that same set of credentials.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  31. Confiscation??? by kenbo0422 · · Score: 1

    The law states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. WHAT he is guilty of is beyond me. Since he's NOT proven to be guilty of anything, yet, the confiscation of his personal firearms and permits are a breach of his constitutional rights. The government has broken constitutional law by doing this, and the persons involved need to be prosecuted and jailed for doing so. Also, the items must be returned immediately.

    1. Re:Confiscation??? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Those weapons and permits are issued to them. Just as a cop's issued firearm and badge are taken from them if they are under suspension or investigation, so were his. Notice it said his "federal firearm". This wasn't a gun he went and bought at the local gun shop or a permit he went down to the county courthouse to get. They were federally issued documents and equipment that he had to go through a federal training class to get. They are not his property no more than a soldier's issued M-4 is his property. So calm down.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Confiscation??? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      The law states that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
      Yes, but in most cases, the law assumes you are guilty. For example, if you are suspected of a violent crime, they will lock you up until your court date, even though they have not proven you guilty. Meanwhile, you might lose your job, your spouse, get raped and any other number of inconveniences and persecutions, and if they find you not guilty, well, the pat on the shoulder on your way out really helps doesn't it?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Confiscation??? by kcitren · · Score: 1

      It wasn't his personnel firearm, it was his federally issued firearm. It was the TSA's.

    4. Re:Confiscation??? by Rary · · Score: 1

      The law states that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

      So many people misunderstand this concept.

      The idea of being "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is a concept that applies in a court of law. The idea is that it is the prosecution's job to prove that you're guilty, not the defense's job to prove that you're innocent. It does not apply outside of the courtroom, as it would make no sense. How could the police ever arrest anyone if they always presumed everyone to be innocent? The police arrest you because they think you're guilty. They hold you in jail because they think you're guilty. But when it comes to the trial, the prosecutor has to prove your guilt, and if they fail to do that, then you're set free as an innocent person.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    5. Re:Confiscation??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't his personnel firearm, it was his federally issued firearm. It was the TSA's.

      In other words, it was his "personnel" firearm, rather than a personal one.

  32. Re:Yes he does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is only to worry about if they reach their intended destination before the malicious ground crew blows them out of the sky.

  33. It's not actually about you, it's about the mid-ea by dbIII · · Score: 1

    What he wants is for the United States to become so fascist that the people outright rebel against it, causing civil war and the destruction of the USA.

    The impression I get from what has been said about the tapes is that he will have hit his goal once the USA is seen as something that the Saudi rulers and possibly others in the region can not associate with if they want to retain power.
    He may be happy if the USA were to disintegrate as a side effect, but pretending that was his initial goal as many opportunists have is just a stupid exercise in adding a long list of manufactured evil traits to something that is already a monster.

  34. Re:Yes he does. by rycamor · · Score: 0

    Nowhere in your rambling, incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

  35. Re:Yes he does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have the pilot on your, why get some random asshole a weapon?

    We're protecting against 911 attacks. That means planes being used as bombs, meaning the pilot is gonna die anyway. Your logic is contorted and flawed.

  36. Re:Land of the free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you = fail

  37. This is a pattern with Janet Napolitano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She doesn't take criticism constructively... she gets defensive.

    1. Re:This is a pattern with Janet Napolitano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trusting Fox News as a source is like parking your uncapped jimmy sideways in a crack whore's hershey tunnel. You may just as well be touting "the other side of the story" from MSNBC.

    2. Re:This is a pattern with Janet Napolitano by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yes, better to trust an upstanding "unbiased" organization like CBS who doesn't engage in anything fake. Right?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:This is a pattern with Janet Napolitano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Sadly, all our media outlets have largely been co-opted. For actual investigative reporting and some semblance of balance on American affairs, the BBC is still reliable. (But how long until the UK begins pimping that out?)

  38. So calm down. by Ismellpoop · · Score: 1

    What about his concealed carry permit?

    1. Re:So calm down. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Regular CC permits are not applicable to planes. I know, I have one. You have to have a special permit, issued by the federal government, that allows you to carry on planes. This is issued to Air Marshals and pilots in the program. They took away his permit to use and carry a gun on a plane. The mention of a conceal carry permit is a summary(and possibly article) fail.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:So calm down. by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Whoops, actually, I was wrong on that. The local sheriff asked him to relinquish his CCP. California state law may prohibit the possession of firearms(and therefore carry permits) under certain circumstances, this may be one of them. I'm having trouble finding the exact legal codes surrounding surrender of permit in California.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:So calm down. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1
      Just found this:

      Similarly, California Government Code Section 821.2 immunizes a public employee from any liability for any injury caused by his or her issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license certificate, approval or order or similar authorization where he or she is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended, or revoked.

      So, seems the sheriff had every right under California state law to ask for the permit to be surrendered. California has some of the most stringent rules regarding CCPs, and also seems to have some of the most expensive. Also seems Sacramento is one of the more restrictive counties in the state as well.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:So calm down. by echucker · · Score: 1

      There's a good chance that you won't ever find it. The Feds will simply claim special circumstances under the Patriot Act, and the sheriff is doing was he was told by the nice men in the suits.

    5. Re:So calm down. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      California is a "may issue" state. They can take away your permit for almost any reason they wish. In the 38 (or is it 40 now?) free states that operate under "shall issue" they would not be able to do this unless he was actually charged with a crime.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  39. typical by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    Is it typical in the USA to 'shoot the messenger'?
    Why is security theater so unavoidable, even when they are made to be ashamed?
    Why don't they fix the issues he pointed out?
    It is all so childish, as seen from here: no security even though they pretend to all the time.
    Why do I see parallels to the Assange so-called-case? (various entities try to punish him when there isn't even an official complaint, let alone case)

    1. Re:typical by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Is it typical in the USA to 'shoot the messenger'?

      Now that's just plain unfair. We Europeans are every bit as fond of shooting messengers as our US-American cousins.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
  40. Completely. by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

    There are usually two or three people in the cockpit- Pilot, copilot, sometimes navigator (Or whatever that third guy is- flight engineer, maybe?). If the pilot starts going off-course, the other two are going to start asking questions. If he goes into a crazy dive or aims at a building, the other two are going to try to relieve him of command as quickly as possible. Eliminate those other two quickly, and the cabin door is locked, so nobody can do anything about it and Mr. Pilot has the plane all to himself.

    I believe it happened once on a FedEx flight- Flight crew attacked the pilot and copilot with a claw hammer. He failed, thankfully.

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
  41. Patrick Smith covered the gaping staff loophole by toby · · Score: 1

    Here and again here.

    --
    you had me at #!
  42. How do you spell free speach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This country is getting so paranoid... you do know that is a contagious disease?

  43. The TSA, America's jack booted thugs by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    The TSA is the scariest organization in the USA. It is huge. The regulations it seeks to enforce are classified for national security. It highers only low wage under-educated people. The belligerence you encounter dealing with the TSA is astounding.

    It is a recipe for violations of civil rights and suppression of freedom and expression.

    The TSA is, in itself, an anathema to freedom and the constitution.

  44. Where are the videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are not linked from the article nor do I see them on youtube...

    1. Re:WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS? by 4phun · · Score: 1

      Can anyone give a link to the YouTube videos?

      All the YouTube videos have been pulled. CNN for awhile had nice excerpts that they broadcast live on Dec 24.

      The timing of this news event was to scare people who are traveling on the holiday. It will become even bigger international news if there are successful terrorist attacks this holiday season in the USA.

      So far the nation has made it to December 25 with out a single successful Al-Qaeda hit, only seven more days to go.

  45. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you think the Nazi party seize power in Germany? Dumb-Ass! Read a fucking history book your stupid, slavish, ignorant, unamerican, unpatriotic, terroristic, vile prick!

  46. HI, I worked for the TSA (7 years ago) by n_djinn · · Score: 2
    I started the long difficult process of leaving a federal job after during training/testing after one day I went through a checkpoint with a dummy IED on my person getting it past the screeners and not alarming on anything. This was at a level IV International airport. I worked with some good dedicated people, but the other 90% were there for a fed paycheck and cared nothing about security. At one security meeting during a briefing on active shooter or bomb threat on the secure side one lady screeches "that an'int mah job, no way I am going down there [to help evacuate, NOT to intervine], I didn't sign up for that. No way, uht uh!".

    I joined all excited, I'll start in screening like everyone else and move in to one of the more obscure TSA roles (undercover security testing, behavior interpretation, EDO,etc) . After 5 months it was clear the only seniority was considered for advancement, not prior experience or intelligence. Top heavy and poor performance (saw a screener put his hand on a gun in a bag and pass it though without finding it in the training environment) Having to do pat downs at the gate of active military members because they had a one-way ticket. Not doing background checks on screeners for months after they started (8 weeks in I was informed they lost my SF86 and I had to do another one!?!), the list is huge and there is the pages of documents of stuff I signed saying I wouldn't ever mention.

    --
    I do not play in the middle of the road
    1. Re:HI, I worked for the TSA (7 years ago) by n_djinn · · Score: 1

      -i ts a little unclear, there was no actual threat, it was a meeting about SOP.

      --
      I do not play in the middle of the road
  47. On the other hand by webdog314 · · Score: 1

    Replace "TSA" with "Microsoft", and "security vulnerability" with "software exploit". Now we're back to the discussion about posting live vulnerabilities to the net. If we have a problem with that, we should certainly have a problem with this pilot.

  48. no, actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason is that dogs get tired, and sniffing for weird chemicals all the time tends to wear them out. Plus you need to house them somewhere, train them, feed them, and care for them. Basically, dogs don't scale -- it would take thousands of them to properly cover all of the airports in the U.S. (Note that they do use bomb-sniffing dogs on random checks throughout the airports, but they would need like 50x as many of them to actually use them for security screening).

    With the rape-scanners on the other hand, they can just buy as many as they want of them. It costs nothing except (1) huge amounts of taxpayer money, and (2) a huge loss of personal dignity and privacy for all air passengers in the U.S. No big deal, obviously. /sarcasm

  49. He was a bad boy... by TheGreatMcCluck · · Score: 1

    He made a fatal mistake. Doesn't he know that people shouldn't know there is no security whilst the TSA is sticking its hands up their daughters skirts in the name of security? Big Brother is come, but we don't see his face... we're too busy looking up in the sky for terrorists and looking at all the pretty pictures on our HD TVs.

  50. and in minnesota... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's brett farve, and everywhere it's wensday, febyouary and noo-kular...ah, english the living language;-)

  51. Ha! how neive you are! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Politicians are limited in their power to do what they want, so they crave MORE power to do what they want (good or bad, selfish or selfless.)

    To get this, they need to MOVE UPWARD to HIGHER positions not merely maintain their current position.

    Naturally, the greedy corrupt ones will want more money which is usually related to how high they can get; but not necessarily. The higher up the less likely your crimes will be punished or prevented...

    Term limits would encourage MORE upward movement than we already have; it wouldn't stop all the problems we have.

    Sometimes we have a GREAT politician who isn't killed (or dies in an "accident") and I do not think it is worth losing them just to stop a few entrenched crooks. If you haven't noticed, its easy for crooks to win in our system and honest people are not likely to even get elected in the 1st place.

  52. I give you a terrorist plot by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Since terrorism seems to be all the rage nowadays, I give you this very simple plot:

    1. A guy wants to blow up a plane, maybe even more than one.
    2. He hires some other dudes who have the same ideas.
    3. He gets one or more of his recruits to become TSA agents. The plot becomes a long one, but so what, if it takes a couple of years to implement even, as long as there is money...
    4. Some of the people he hired do make it and become TSA agents.
    5. The fake TSA agents bring weapons through the security check points themselves.

    that's it, the rest is details left to imagination.

    1. Re:I give you a terrorist plot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why bother? There are probably dozens of quicker ways to blow up a plane. The fact that none exploded recently is a miracle in a world so full of terrorists out to get the USA like they'd like us to believe.

    2. Re:I give you a terrorist plot by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, if your idea is to blow up a plane it's much simpler and less expensive than that, all you need is to buy and smuggle a small number of shoulder fired rocket propelled grenade launchers that may even be heat or otherwise guided and then you just wait by an airport for a plane.

      If you want to take over a plane or over more than one plane, you can still do it by getting your own people to become 'TSA agents'.

    3. Re:I give you a terrorist plot by winwar · · Score: 1

      "Well, sure, if your idea is to blow up a plane it's much simpler and less expensive than that, all you need is to buy and smuggle a small number of shoulder fired rocket propelled grenade launchers that may even be heat or otherwise guided and then you just wait by an airport for a plane."

      I think toner cartridges will still work. Just be sure to keep the weight down...

      Or we could go back to mislabeled oxygen canisters.

    4. Re:I give you a terrorist plot by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have considered just what kind of abuse an airplane can take and still stay up.

      Sure you can put a hole through a fuselage, but even with half of the walls missing, an airplane can still land safely, not like it hasn't happened before.

    5. Re:I give you a terrorist plot by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      That's actually pretty complicated. I give you this simpler plot: terrorist hides gun in rectum, gets security green light because the backscatter scanner says he's legit, gets on plane, pulls out gun... ...and promptly gets taken out by passengers who would gladly risk being shot after the 9/11/2001 realization that everyone on board is likely to be killed if the terrorist manages to get control of the cockpit.

      We should probably be paying some attention to our harbors and the cargo that actually goes on planes, and not so much toward taking grandma's denture glue away because it's more than the allowable amount.

  53. House of cards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA should immediatly apologize for harboring an additude that reduces flight safety.

    Security by obscurity not only does not work in this context it presents real dangers by masking real problems. There are a shitload of people who make up ground crews and my guess their turnover rate is about average. The procedures for ground crew at airports is NOT A SECRET no matter how hard the TSA wishes to consider otherwise.

    The existance of axes in the cockpit is not a secret. Google 'cockpit axe' if you don't believe me. People were talking about this days after 9/11.

    A terrorist in the cockpit could just as easily go for the flight controls or the pilots sidearm. It is rediculous. It would be useful to analyze the exact positioning and levers necessary to break it free to ensure should a terrorist gain access to the cockpit obtaining the axe would not be the weakest link.

    There is a problem with this article in that it refrences 6 clips but only two issues. Were there other issues? Could those have perhaps referenced other...possibly legitimate concerns? Does anyone still have the origional videos?

  54. Re:Yes he does. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    What is there to stop him from giving that weapon to someone else on a different flight? Particularly a bomb or bombs. So the pilot crashes one plane and another plane (or multiple planes) explode.

    I think it's more likely a pilot could be bribed to give a weapon to someone on a different flight without the pilot intending any harm to his own. This scenario only requires the pilot to be corrupt - yours requires he be an insane fanatic.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  55. WHERE ARE THE VIDEOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone give a link to the YouTube videos?

  56. Re:Did he voice his criticism internally? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2

    What the hell difference does it make?

    These are trivial problems, that anybody charged with security, and even remotely competent at their job would have noticed right off the bat, and fixed.

    The fact that they haven't been fixed means one of two things:

    1. The TSA isn't at all about improving security.
    2. The TSA has no competent employees.

    I suppose a third possibility is "both of the above" but that's not the point.

    This look to me to be more likely done to inform the public about the total waste of money that is the TSA, and the accompanying security theater.

    Basically, they're pissed off that he publicly called them on their bullshit.

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  57. Re:Land of the free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You spelled all the words correctly. :)

  58. The Emperor's New Clothes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you dare tell the emperor that he's stark raving naked... or you'll get your head chopped off.

  59. tor by luther349 · · Score: 2

    don't you know if you upload anything to youtube to use tor and a fake account. relly the case if your gonna expose are rights killing tsa to the stupid theater they are.

  60. Diss Nigger a fucked T-Bone Stake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pitty Pitty dis nigger.

    Nobody gona find him in 36 hrs.

    Hees bees scattered across da earth.

    -308

  61. He should have followed proper procedure by noidentity · · Score: 1

    He's in trouble for not following proper security procedure of reporting all problems to the appropriate place, /dev/null.

  62. embarass the govt, no constitutional rights for u! by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    They confiscated his gun for pointing out safety flaws? I guess constitutional rights don't apply to people who embarrass a government? Can you imagine if they said you weren't allowed to go to church or vote because you embarrassed the government? But it's okay if it's the 2nd amendment? What the fuck, america. Pussies.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  63. subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Standard MO: don't fix the flaws, "fix" the person who exposes them. I feel more secure already!

  64. By New Year's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Replace the whole body scanners with BS detectors and the TSA folds by New Year's. One billion dollars for intimidation machines that don't work as advertised and may be causing cancer.

  65. The Ramp Crew Is Screened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ground crew is screened, its called ADASP Aviation Direct Access Screening Program. As a Older pilot and FFDO (federal flight deck officer) He should be aware of this practice and seen it in progress at least a few times. The problem is ADASP is at a random time and location (there are specifications to the randomness I will not go into).

    The pilots should be exempt from screening however. I know a pilot who is glad he went through screening. after purchasing lunch at the newly renovated restaurant in the airport. he came through the checkpoint and passed his food through the xray. The X-ray operator noticed a screw in the xray image of the takeout box. Though it might have fallen out of the previous persons bag and been under the box (2d image could not indicate depth). The pilot was told he should check his food for a screw. He Did and found a screw in the middle of his sandwich.

    I know of a flight attendant caught with a bullet in carry on, honest mistake, might have been fired or suspended though.

    I chose to remain anonymous, as I am a coward, and would like to keep any gov job.
    At 50 yrs old and an FFDO I guess he's worked enough and made enough money to not care about that career anymore, He should have suspected he would have gotten into trouble.

  66. Re:Did he voice his criticism internally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Ben Francklin's Quote Applies, Also Absolute security is expensive, and would take much longer than current lines are

    2. Incompetence can be found from top to bottom. There are many intelligent people working for them, However they have been handicapped by the incompetence of a superior.

    Someone needs to be doing something, they are going a too far, it is better than before 2001 I know of some of the old private security people that were doing a training session one day and had a Sample Package of Bomb Simulates sent through the xray. employees were told to gather round the screen to have a look and identify the components. One of the rules when you have found what you think is a Bomb, is Do Not Let it Out of the X-ray. At the conclusion of the demonstration the operator was instructed to send the package out, It was already at the other end outside the exray.

  67. Meanwhile on the other side of the pond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Australia, the drug and bomb sniffing dogs are rather cute medium-sized beagles. You can bet if the US TSA deployed dogs they'd be something fierce and attack enabled, because damnit, you shouldn't deploy a dog with a good sense of smell! You should deploy a dog to intimidate!