Slashdot Mirror


Congress Wants Your TSA Stories

McGruber writes "Transportation Security Administration (TSA) program challenges and failures will be the focus of a joint hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on Monday, March 26, 2012. The Hearing is titled 'TSA Oversight Part III: Effective Security or Security Theater?' Bruce Schneier is scheduled to be a witness at this hearing. Additional information on the hearing is posted on the oversight committee's website. The Congressmen who serve on these committees are soliciting questions from the public to ask TSA officials at the hearing ... provided the public is willing to submit their questions via Facebook."

328 comments

  1. via Facebook only? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's the first complaint, right there...

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:via Facebook only? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. It's aol all over again. For someone that doesn't have a facebook account it becomes more and more difficult to access parts of the internet.

    2. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I completely agree! I can't believe they aren't planning to support telnetting in and typing my story directly into the database with an RPC!

    3. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's about maximizing the number of people they can reach. FB reaches more people than email. If they're going to pick just ONE way to collect feedback, FB is the one that reaches the most people.

      You increasingly see this elsewhere too, like companies who only accept warranty repair contacts on FB. Like it or not, it's becoming the de-facto standard way to communicate online.

    4. Re:via Facebook only? by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The internet is not owned by any single entity. Facebook is.

    5. Re:via Facebook only? by aoism · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even scarier, if you have a Facebook account and want to share some links, Facebook has started to censor site URLs they believe are malicious from the Facebook walls. Try to post a link to http://www.spi0n.com/ on your wall to see it in action.

    6. Re:via Facebook only? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This problem is much cheaper to solve: get a facebook account. The only tie back to you is an email address, and you can buffer that through a throwaway gmail account.

      And agreeing to a 3rd party commercial entities terms of service to participate in democracy doesn't strike you as lunacy?

      Why -exactly- should I need to agree to facebook's terms of use as a prerequisite for any sort of participation or interaction with my elected government?

      Not everything is about the money something costs me. The fact that I -can- get a throwaway facebook account for free in no way changes the fact that I absolutely should not have to.

      This is wrong.

      It may well be convenient for many citizens, and even expedient and efficient for the government, but it is fundamentally wrong.

    7. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >>>only accept warranty repair contacts on FB

      Should be illegal. What about people who don't even have internet? "Oh I'm sorry your Sony TV broke down. We don't have to honor the warranty because you don't have internet. Screw you customer. Hahahahahaha!"

    8. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF?

      There is no technical reason that they couldn't use email. You know.. the technology people have been using to communicate with for decades.

    9. Re:via Facebook only? by Kenja · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since you must have an email account to use facebook and you do not need facebook to have an email account, I would say you are wrong and that email would reach more people.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    10. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And agreeing to a 3rd party commercial entities terms of service to participate in democracy doesn't strike you as lunacy?

      A. No. Going where the people are seems like a good thing, not lunacy at all. B. You aren't being prevented from participating in democracy. Write a letter if you feel strongly about something. You can't believe that the congress critters will ignore a letter just because they asked for comments via facebook.

      Why -exactly- should I need to agree to facebook's terms of use as a prerequisite for any sort of participation or interaction with my elected government?

      You don't. You are free to participate in ways other than via facebook.

      It may well be convenient for many citizens, and even expedient and efficient for the government, but it is fundamentally wrong.

      You do realize that every form of "participation" requires some action on the part of the citizen, don't you? "We should be allowed to send an email..." means you must have an email account. "We should be able to poke stuff into a web form..." means you must have Internet access AND a web browser. "We should be able to mail them a letter..." means you have to be able to afford a stamp and have the ability to write. Every means of participation inconveniences some citizens. Does that make all of those means of participation "fundamentally wrong"?

      Yes, if facebook charged you money to participate, I'd agree that it was wrong to use facebook for this. Facebook is free. If you already have internet access, you can have facebook for nothing extra. Since the OP was talking about interacting in an internet environment to start with, then whether it is via facebook or email or web makes no significant difference. OTH, the phone company charges you money to call your Senator. Why is the phone company ok and facebook bad? Or do you think the fact that Senators have phones is "fundamentally wrong", too?

      Get a free account under a dummy name. Use a throwaway email address. Don't be stupid and send friend requests to any real people who might out you. Don't post your real information. Don't use a real picture of yourself for your avatar. Do none of the things that would identify you. Do all of the things you would do for any other internet connection or app that would anonymize you. You get to participate, facebook gets nothing. What's your problem with that?

    11. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      "... it's how everyone under about 30 communicates."

      No, it is how everyone who is stupid communicates.

      You are obviously in that set of people.

      Not all of us are.

      You will learn to call those who are not "sir" and "boss" and
      in the end you will call all of them "master", because they will BE
      your master, motherfucker.

      Now get down on your knees and lick my boots.

    12. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm 23 and without a Facebook account. It's clearly not how *everyone* under 30 communicates. Well, I suppose you could make the claim that I don't communicate, but I believe this very post refutes that.

    13. Re:via Facebook only? by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      I hear this complaint from my elderly parents all the time... about how more-and-more government programs & corporate services are moving to the internet where they can't access them. And I agree with them. You should be able to get access through the phone, or in person, like it was in the past. Internet (or facebook) should not be the ONLY fucking option.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    14. Re:via Facebook only? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      This. Given the lack of transparency on the lists we know about (like no-fly lists), and the role of facebook in providing info to various government agencies, wouldn't retaliation of some kind for popular and troublesome questions be a concern?

    15. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please provide the list of companies doing this so I can boycott them! And no, this is not a "tongue-in-cheek" response. I'm quite serious. I've had it with this brand of nonsense...

    16. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      Internet (or facebook) should not be the ONLY fucking option.

      Where is it said that internet or facebook is the only option?

      And the summary is wrong, Bruce is not scheduled to testify on Monday. He's been cancelled. Cue the conspiracy theories....

    17. Re:via Facebook only? by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, how sad that someone who refuses to use facebook for any reason won't get to participate in anything that happens on facebook.

      In that condescending tone you are using I see what you are saying. But you're missing the point.

      The point is, Congress did not have to restrict this only to Facebook account holders. That's the only reason why there is any question of missing anything due to not having such an account. This is the US federal government. It's not like they couldn't afford their own site.

      There is only one reason why such a well-funded, well-connected, powerful organization would do it this way. They want to restrict commentary to Facebook account holders, which is another way to say they only want to hear from people who jump on bandwagons. If you use Facebook there is a slim but non-zero chance you might be an individual who did so by your own decision and not as a result of caving in to some kind of social pressure. But in this day and age if you do not choose to participate in Facebook it is definitely because you are an individual who can resist all of the people trying to get you to jump on the bandwagon.

      Wow, you mean a top-down organization like Congress doesn't want to hear from individuals who can think for themselves and make their own decisions, even going against the way the wind blows? Color me surprised.

      It's a filtering mechanism. That's the only reason to do it this way. You really can't see that? Or is this personal to you -- you do have a Facebook account and don't want to admit that certain inferences can be made about you from that? That's fine and good but it has nothing to do with the effect this has. Two plus two does equal four even if you're really offended about it.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    18. Re:via Facebook only? by Vectronic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Action:

      Sorry, this post contains a blocked URL
      The content you're trying to share includes a link that's been blocked for being spammy or unsafe:

      spi0n.com
      91.121.47.226

      For more information, visit the Help Center. If you think you're seeing this by mistake, please let us know.

    19. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In that condescending tone you are using I see what you are saying. But you're missing the point.

      Sarcasm often sounds condescending. I got the point. The point is specious.

      The point is, Congress did not have to restrict this only to Facebook account holders.

      They didn't. Where does it say, other than in the summary, that the only way of sending questions is via facebook? Answer: it doesn't. Fax your question. Email it. Nothing says only facebook will be accepted. It says members will accept questions via facebook -- which is a new thing and merits a specific comment so people know they CAN do it that way -- not that they will ONLY accept questions via facebook. They list the names of the members of the committee, you can use that information to contact them in any way you see fit.

      You see, you sometimes on slashdot have to read the original material to get the true story. The summaries are sometimes wrong. Gasp. And sometimes they are wrong in a way intended to cause alarm and vast amounts of jumping up and down and moral outrage about something that isn't happening.

      They want to restrict commentary to Facebook account holders, which is another way to say they only want to hear from people who jump on bandwagons.

      They aren't restricting comments, so your entire bandwagon argument is flummery. And what does joining facebook so you can use facebook to send a comment to your congressman say about you? It means you joined facebook so you can send your comment to a congressman. It doesn't mean you "jump on bandwagons". You don't have to do any of the other stuff facebook is used for. It's a TOOL. How you use it is up to you. You can use it for all the social stuff like sharing pics with strangers or posting comments on other people's walls to make them look stupid or playing stupid games or joining corporate marketing campaigns, or whatever use it is that you feel merits deragatory remarks about people who use facebook. Or you can use it for the things you want to, like sending a comment to a congressman and nothing else.

      It's a tool. If you use a hammer to drive in screws, you are a moron and a fool. If you use the hammer to drive nails, you aren't. Same tool. Different uses. Different users.

    20. Re:via Facebook only? by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Please feel free to steal/use/modify any of my questions. I do not use Facebook for politics.

      What limits do you think should be placed on the TSA to avoid mission scope-creep?

      What did you think of the "digging up Marilyn Monroe" incident over Twitter? Do you believe TSA employees should screen passengers based on their twitter feed? Do you think TSA employees should be allowed to wear police-like uniforms/badges when none of them received the training of police officers? Do you think the long lines at the security checkpoints are becoming themselves counterproductive since those long lines themselves could become terrorist targets?

      Air travel (especially Economy class air travel) has become more inconvenient, more uncomfortable, and more stressful for passengers. What are some of the ways you'd suggest congress could alleviate those issues? Could the congress suggest ways to measure those problems as objectively as possible (without going through airport officials who have the incentive to keep those figures as artificially low as possible)?

      Do you support the construction of huge airports that look cool and inflate the ego of the architect who designed them? Or do you think all that money could be better spent at making an airport more usable and more comfortable for the public? Do you support the monopoly practice of limiting which cab companies/airport shuttle companies get to pick up random passengers from the airport? Do you have any friends or family members sitting on those airport commissions yourself?

      Should first class passengers be allowed to skip the extra screening at La Guardia airport for United (vs. the Economy class passengers)? I'm not talking about the pre-checked passengers or the frequent fliers, I'm asking about the first class/business class passengers that just had to pay extra money to get those tickets (just like the terrorists on 9/11 did to get first class tickets).

    21. Re:via Facebook only? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Odd... that's like saying WoW is the standard way to play computer games today.

      News flash: It doesn't become a standard just because it's a fad that many follow.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:via Facebook only? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So I guess the next elections should be held at Walmart?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You yourself claim that "Going where the people are seems like a good thing". At the same time, you claim that "You aren't being prevented from participating in democracy". Well, both are true, kindof. And completely missing the point.

      Suppose we moved to a model of democracy where there is only one polling station in the middle of some desert. But you could also post your ballot at some retailer chain if you have their rebate/bonus/whatever card. You see, nobody would be prevented from voting, also, the card is free, and you could just fake the data, after all. And there are many people there, too, and what's better than going where people are? Anything odd about that idea?

      Now, why is it supposedly good to go where people are? Because it lowers the barrier to participation. If you accept that premise, you essentially acknowlegde that it's not just about whether you have any possibility at all to participate, but also about there being some equal opportunity for everyone. Which is where facebook fails.

      And that's not because of money. All the other methods of access are much less problematic for the simple reason that (a) to use those, you are not required to contract with any particular party, and (b) those options there are are rather heavily regulated and limited in what they can do to the interaction they facilitate. No postal service filtering out mail they don't like. No telco listening in to your calls in order to add some advertising.

      Also, "anonymity" is not just about "being associated with you 'real' name". It's also about correlation between different interactions of yours. As far as facebook is concerned, it's actually more about that. It's mostly irrelevant to them what your "real" name is as long as they can recognize you. In order to create a profile of you, your name just doesn't matter. And multiple accounts are not allowed, AFAIK. So in order to easily participate in this (and presumably future) discussion(s), you are required to make your profile information accessible to one particular private entity.

    24. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So I guess the next elections should be held at Walmart?

      Why would you have a problem if one of the polling places was at a Walmart? Go to the local Walmart, go to the local school, big difference NOT. More parking at the Walmart. Doesn't disrupt classes. Doesn't keep sex offenders who are restricted from being within 200 feet of any school from voting. Sounds like a good plan.

      In Oregon, with vote by mail, and Walmarts tending to have mail drop boxes, we actually have polling places in every Walmart. And lots of other stores and malls.

    25. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Attempts to promote Google+ are censored as well too.

    26. Re:via Facebook only? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We should be allowed to send an email..." means you must have an email account.

      I can choose any of umteen zillion mail providers, or self host if I'm so inclined.

      "We should be able to poke stuff into a web form..." means you must have Internet access AND a web browser.

      And I've spoken out before against government dictating what browser we use too. Remember when a lot of government sites only worked with Internet Explorer? Was that ever a "good thing"?

      "We should be able to mail them a letter..." means you have to be able to afford a stamp and have the ability to write.

      The country has a publicly funded school system to teach you... you really don't have much to complain about.
      As for the stamp... Canada lets you write your representatives without one. Good idea there.

      Facebook is free. Get a free account under a dummy name. You get to participate, facebook gets nothing. What's your problem with that?

      So your solution is to violate facebooks terms of service? So not only do you want me to deal with specific commercial entity I dislike, but you would have me violate my agreement with them too...

      I don't have a facebook account because I don't want to agree to their terms of services, because I have principles. Not because I don't think I could get away with lying to them. Your attitude is what is wrong with the world...

    27. Re:via Facebook only? by mspohr · · Score: 2

      I think the complaint was that Facebook was the ONLY option.
      In your analogy... Why would you have a problem if you could ONLY vote at Walmart?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    28. Re:via Facebook only? by nazsco · · Score: 1

      what if it were ONLY via walmart? that's what's being discussed.

    29. Re:via Facebook only? by icebraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that every form of "participation" requires some action on the part of the citizen, don't you? "We should be allowed to send an email..." means you must have an email account. "We should be able to poke stuff into a web form..." means you must have Internet access AND a web browser. "We should be able to mail them a letter..." means you have to be able to afford a stamp and have the ability to write. Every means of participation inconveniences some citizens. Does that make all of those means of participation "fundamentally wrong"?

      I believe the problem is that you are forced to use a single company, which can censor your posts or shut you off whenever they want. None of your examples have the same issue.

      Yes, if facebook charged you money to participate, I'd agree that it was wrong to use facebook for this. Facebook is free. If you already have internet access, you can have facebook for nothing extra. Since the OP was talking about interacting in an internet environment to start with, then whether it is via facebook or email or web makes no significant difference. OTH, the phone company charges you money to call your Senator. Why is the phone company ok and facebook bad? Or do you think the fact that Senators have phones is "fundamentally wrong", too?

      There are other costs besides monetary. By using Facebook, you're promoting a company that makes money off of spying on people (no, not only what they choose to put there about themselves). http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/in-which-eben-moglen-like-legit-yells-at-me-for-being-on-facebook/

      Get a free account under a dummy name. Use a throwaway email address. Don't be stupid and send friend requests to any real people who might out you. Don't post your real information. Don't use a real picture of yourself for your avatar. Do none of the things that would identify you. Do all of the things you would do for any other internet connection or app that would anonymize you. You get to participate, facebook gets nothing. What's your problem with that?

      What you're suggesting is against their ToS, which might be a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

      Also, Facebook still gets benefit of being validated as a proper communication channel for constituents, therefore entrenching their position of control over everyone's communications. It's littering, as Mr. Moglen says.

    30. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think a form would be fine.

      I guess from their point of view requiring facebook accounts cuts down on the garbage and makes it just about as inclusive as any other method.

      Though I won't be surprised if some idiot /. troll comes out of the woodwork to claim it's an effort to catalog dissenting citizens.

    31. Re:via Facebook only? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that Facebook itself is an email provider, users just have to enable that option to get an @facebook.com address.

    32. Re:via Facebook only? by causality · · Score: 2

      They aren't restricting comments, so your entire bandwagon argument is flummery.

      I get what you're saying there. I mean, AARP is still a very powerful voting bloc so it's not like they are going to disregard entirely postal letters and faxes and such.

      All the same, if you're a staffer who has to field and sum up many thousands or millions of replies, you have to perform some kind of triage. Do you focus first on individual paper letters? Sounds nice until you see the mass of them. Okay. So what's easier to aggregate? Yeah, electronic communication that already arrives in an easily indexed, searchable format. With the masses of users it commands, there is no way Facebook won't hold a porportionally heavy weight here.

      Then there's the bandwagon deal whether you care for the notion or not. Facebook users all have something in common: they are willing to surrender privacy to have a substandard Web hosting presence. That means they can be aggregated, just as "the black vote" is aggretated, "the hispanic vote" is aggregated, "the women voters" are aggregated, and other general blocs are artificially produced. It's all about group identity with these (Congress) people. Identity politics has become a huge force even when it doesn't deserve to be.

      I'm sorry but you are blind if you don't see the influence this has. This is just another group that can be treated as a group. If it were otherwise, it would be difficult for Facebook to monetize it. Real individuals are quite hard to market to. It's like trying to herd cats.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    33. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      ...you really don't have much to complain about.

      You've missed the point entirely. I'm not complaining about how hard it is to communicate with a congressman. I'm pointing out that every means of communicating with a congressman requires something from the constituent. Email, web form (and I didn't say "requires a specific web browser", so your IE rant is baseless, too), writing a letter. This particular form requires a facebook account. Big deal. It isn't the only way to communicate, and it costs nothing more than internet access already costs. If you don't want to use it, don't. Just stop whining that congress is using it. If you don't want to use that method, pick another. Just keep in mind that the excuse that "it requires a facebook account" is about the same level of complexity and cost as "it requires internet and a web browser".

      So your solution is to violate facebooks terms of service?

      I'm glad someone finally picked up on that. On slashdot, everyone laughs at unenforcable shrink wrap licenses. Most people have utter disdain for copyright and patent. And yet, a facebook TOS is sacrosanct? ROTFL.

      So not only do you want me to deal with specific commercial entity I dislike, ...

      I don't give a rat's ass if you deal with facebook or not. I truly could not care less. It's your decision. Just don't complain about the congress using it as one means of communicating with their constituents.

      I don't have a facebook account because I don't want to agree to their terms of services,

      That's fine. Everyone picks which rules they'll play by. You respect unenforcable TOS. Don't deal with them, then.

    34. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Troll

      I think the complaint was that Facebook was the ONLY option.

      Facebook isn't the only option.

      In your analogy... Why would you have a problem if you could ONLY vote at Walmart?

      Personally, I wouldn't. My analogy was correct, however, by saying "one of the polling places", because facebook isn't the only way people have of communicating with their congressmen.

    35. Re:via Facebook only? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      More parking at the Walmart. Doesn't disrupt classes. Doesn't keep sex offenders who are restricted from being within 200 feet of any school from voting. Sounds like a good plan.

      I thought ex-convicts weren't allowed to vote. And if a sex offender is a registered sex offender, they're an ex-con.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    36. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I thought ex-convicts weren't allowed to vote. And if a sex offender is a registered sex offender, they're an ex-con.

      There are misdemeanor sex offences, and I assume people with misdemeanor records can still vote.

    37. Re:via Facebook only? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Yes, if facebook charged you money to participate, I'd agree that it was wrong to use facebook for this. Facebook is free.

      Taking my money is not OK, but taking my privacy is?
      If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    38. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      Taking my money is not OK, but taking my privacy is?

      How does using facebook to post a message on the committee wall in the manner I suggested violate your privacy in any way?

    39. Re:via Facebook only? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      But for misdemeanor 'sex offenses' like indecent exposure or public urination, there isn't a manditory registration, is there?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    40. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      Yeah, electronic communication that already arrives in an easily indexed, searchable format.

      Yeah, EMAIL.

      Facebook users all have something in common: they are willing to surrender privacy to have a substandard Web hosting presence.

      That is your misperception. Not all of them are willing to do that. Many do. And for them, what you call a "substandard web hosting presence" really means "apps that work well enough for what I want to do, all in one convenient place, that all my friends can use too, and I don't have to program or maintain them". Wasn't it you that complained about my condescening tone? Isn't your attitude the same thing? Whose standard applies, yours or the people who use them?

      This is just another group that can be treated as a group.

      I've seen some of the comments. I would be really hesitant to call them "group think" or assign any "group" to them at all.

      Real individuals are quite hard to market to.

      Yes, I am nearly impossible to market to, and yet I have a facebook account. Not a single one of the ads they've shown me has meant anything. They may be getting paid to show them, but so what? Meow.

    41. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does using facebook to post a message on the committee wall in the manner I suggested violate your privacy in any way?

      Unless you are a privacy freak, facebook has been tracking the crap out of your web-browsing for the last X months/years with all of those "like" buttons. Creating an account and then making a political statement is a bunch more dots for facebook to connect with all of the other dots they've already got on you.

    42. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll make this brief.
      A majority of those stories will come from Facebook users. Do you think Facebook users will have similar stories as non-Facebook users? Think privacy. Think if a Facebook user might be more willing to put up with invasive privacy practices as someone who may have swore not to use Facebook.

      (Slashdot has certainly gone down hill ever since they changed the comments sections years back. It's absolutely horrible. I don't know what the webmaster was thinking when they thought this was a good idea. Put this in your comments if you think this is true.)

    43. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      But for misdemeanor 'sex offenses' like indecent exposure or public urination, there isn't a manditory registration, is there?

      I wouldn't know. You'll have to ask someone who thinks that this is a critical part of the point being made and wants to look it up. It was an offhand example of a reason a Walmart would be better than a school for some people.

      And I don't know that you have to be registered to have an exclusion from schools.

      You could also have an order of protection against you for beating up a school teacher and you can't go within 300 feet of him, and he's in the classroom next to the poll. Whatever.

    44. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that yes, there is a registration requirement for those types of offenses in many areas of the US. Hence the stories of people who were busted for drunkenly pissing in the alley outside a bar at 3 AM being lumped in with people who habitually rape babies.

      It's not about justice, it's about maintaining the Punishment State.

    45. Re:via Facebook only? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'm glad someone finally picked up on that. On slashdot, everyone laughs at unenforcable shrink wrap licenses. Most people have utter disdain for copyright and patent. And yet, a facebook TOS is sacrosanct? ROTFL.

      Like I said, I'm not the least bit worried about whether I can "get away with it".

      I have no respect for facebook or its crappy tos. However I respect myself too much to voluntarily enter into an agreement with them, and then violate it. First I give it legitimacy by agreeing to it, and then I strip myself of any moral high ground by violating it.

      I respect -myself- too much for that.

    46. Re:via Facebook only? by baegucb · · Score: 1

      Depends on the type of election, state and country. Most states in USA allow voting after terms are complete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement#In_the_USA

    47. Re:via Facebook only? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I don't. No need. I don't need that or a fb account to watch the shows I like either. Still manage to catch every new episode of "The Big Bang Theory" without either.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    48. Re:via Facebook only? by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      Fb is obviously well along the way to begine Web 2.0 AOL's walled garden deal. And seriously, do we need it? Hell no.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    49. Re:via Facebook only? by sjames · · Score: 1

      How about if the election is held exclusively at a strip joint?

    50. Re:via Facebook only? by sjames · · Score: 2

      There have been numerous stories about people being forced to register after being caught peeing on a dumpster and such.

    51. Re:via Facebook only? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, you don't own a tv either.

      ... and never sets foot in a Starbuck's.

    52. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there's the bandwagon deal whether you care for the notion or not. Facebook users all have something in common: they are willing to surrender privacy to have a substandard Web hosting presence. .

      Tell me, what does it say about you when you are traveling abroad and there are no reasonable tools at your disposal for keeping in touch with all of your friends at once? Oh, that's right... it doesn't say anything about you because the privacy/bandwagon argument was a gross generalization from the start!

      Guess what, privacy is not a Boolean; every little thing we do in our life costs us a little privacy. Want to work? Better register with the government for a SSN and government id. Want to hang out with your friends? Hope you don't mind other people at the bar listening in to your conversation. Want to have an intimate relationship? Hope you don't mind actually being intimate with someone other than yourself... People trade privacy for a lot of things, the trick is proper risk management. Never using a tool like Facebook because you don't know or don't care enough to use it correctly is foolish, plain and simple.

      What I find most entertaining is that you are totally okay with generalizing all Facebook users into a single category, but then get all up in arms over the premise that the congress critters might "aggregate the votes" and generalize ideas to certain demographics.

    53. Re:via Facebook only? by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm just going to poke my head in here...You understand that you're being retarded, right?

    54. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, it's much better to use a website designed and controlled by a governmental organization. Where do I sign up?

    55. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What parts of the internet are only on facebook? There is nothing on facebook. Facebook has NO CONTENT. Its a bizarre place of people making short comments to each other and clicking "like" buttons. There is nothing on facebook that I want to see. Not a single thing. I have no desire to be a voyeur and look at what other voyeurs are voyeuring. Utterly pointless site.

    56. Re:via Facebook only? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      ...and never set foot in an airport... oh wait.

    57. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read what you were replying to? It was a different fork off the thread.

    58. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if the election is held exclusively at a strip joint?

      Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    59. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clearly, using Facebook logins to register your stories is an effort to catalog dissenting citizens. What else could it be?

    60. Re:via Facebook only? by andrew3 · · Score: 1

      Facebook isn't the only option.

      It was the only option I saw when I visited the page.

    61. Re:via Facebook only? by andrew3 · · Score: 1

      Facebook controls communications made using their system. That isn't "everyone's communications" by a long shot.

      No, but since Facebook is apparently the "preferred" platform by Congress, it would be a great deal of the communications.

    62. Re:via Facebook only? by andrew3 · · Score: 1

      How does using facebook to post a message on the committee wall in the manner I suggested violate your privacy in any way?

      Last time I checked, Facebook uses these things called cookies. You should look it up.

    63. Re:via Facebook only? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't keep sex offenders who are restricted from being within 200 feet of any school from voting. Sounds like a good plan.

      You truly belong at a WalMart.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    64. Re:via Facebook only? by DrLang21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Members will solicit questions from the public via their Facebook pages to ask TSA officials at the hearing."

      RTFA. Facebook is the only option. There is no suggestion that letters submitted to your congressman via email or US Post will be considered. In fact, there is no suggestion that questions will even be solicited from the audience.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    65. Re:via Facebook only? by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      You truly belong at a WalMart.

      Why? Because he believes that all citizens should be allowed to vote? I might think he's generally full of it, but he has a valid point here.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    66. Re:via Facebook only? by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try to post a Guardian link... There's and app for that... Really... A fucking app to read a web page. Not.

    67. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey cock-biter, get out of the weeds and show some balls. Stupid pimple faced sweaty porn watching gay-handed monkey-lover. AC fucker. You're a coward.

      You forgot "and get off my lawn!"

    68. Re:via Facebook only? by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      True that, true that.. Fucker.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    69. Re:via Facebook only? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Wonderous. My thinking is that they will continue to add sites and weird filters to attempt to achieve their ends, until a fair number of people find it impossible to communicate; these trend-setters will try a new product that DOES let them communicate, and everyone will jump ship. Shorting Facebook's stock now.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    70. Re:via Facebook only? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      But if you don't censor the web, then the serial killers / pedophiles / terrorists win!

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    71. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for arguing with the unnecessarily antagonistic guy who was great at obfuscating his actual point (guess he has an appropriate user name), but seriously your argument has lost water. You're actually upset that people have more options when people communicate with their representatives? I hate facebook too, but really if the discussion isn't being restricted to it then there is nothing to complain about any more than you would complain that some people can (gasp) talk to their representatives in person.

    72. Re:via Facebook only? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Maybe. But let's be honest. The vast majority of people in Congress have gray hair, or are bald, or are in the process of turning gray or bald. As such, this may, in all seriousness, be the first time they've really heard about Facebook, and think it's a hip / neat way to get in touch with the younger crowd.

      Remember how slow the law moves, then remember how fast technology moves. They don't want to get involved in it unless it's seen as a 'sure thing,' and by that point, technology has moved on.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    73. Re:via Facebook only? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      A. No. Going where the people are seems like a good thing, not lunacy at all.

      I agree. From now on, all polling places will be inside Wal-Mart stores...

      Why is the phone company ok and facebook bad?

      Because the phone company has common carrier status, and all the government imposed regulations that go with that. Facebook does not. Maybe Facebook will arbitrarily censor submissions they disagree with. Maybe their terms of service make certain races, genders, or classes of people unable to participate.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    74. Re:via Facebook only? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      True. However, Facebook is currently drawing in members of the younger generations, and will, until something new comes along (which probably already has, and even we're running behind; it's a bad sign when you can drink several Red-Bulls, put a lipper in your mouth, and fall asleep 15 minutes later; and I'm not that old yet).

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    75. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the government (or any reasonably* minded group) would pay much heed to a flood of untraceable anonymous comments?

      Consider how many "anonymous" posts are skipped, regardless of their content.

      *bear with me here

    76. Re:via Facebook only? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      He seems to believe that only people banned from Walmart should not be allowed to vote.
      I'll note in my country voting is a right held by all citizens (only right that is limited to citizens) except the guy in charge of elections and his chief assistant. They did volunteer for their position and are free to quit and vote.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    77. Re:via Facebook only? by Corbets · · Score: 0

      That's a ridiculous argument.

      If they put up a website and allow you to comment there, you still have to agree to a third pary's terms of service (your ISP) to participate. Same for most people if you want to set up a face-to-face feedback session - they'd have to fly or take the train to get to DC, and agree to the carrier's Ts and Cs.

      Facebook is a fact of the modern world, and your argument is exactly why people like Ron Paul never win elections - you're taking what is fundamentally a good thing (Congress showing interest in the TSA problems) and throwing it all out of whack by nitpicking little virtually meaningless ideals.

    78. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      II suppose you could make the claim that I don't communicate, but I believe this very post refutes that.

      Posting to /. refutes nothing of the kind about your communication methods, habits, or behaviour. ;)

    79. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever drive a drywall screw in with a hammer? It's like a ring-shank nail, but it's more easily removed. Know why you'd use a ring-shank nail? Ever bought one? It's quicker than a driver drill, too. Not elegant, not pretty, but if you need something to stick together, and to do it fast... it's pretty expedient, especially if you have the hammer and screw more convenient than your driver. You can also centerpunch studs with a phillips head driver in a 1/2" Milwaukee Hole shooter if want to drive a screw in just the right place, but I digress.

      Moronic? Foolish? I don't think so. Using inappropriate analogies that you don't fully grasp? Risky. Drawing unnecessarily harsh conclusions to analogies you don't fully grasp? Foolish.

    80. Re:via Facebook only? by andymadigan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm 23, I work for a Well Known Bay Area E-Commerce Company, I'm a software engineer (I've been working as one since I was 18). I was in college for a year and a half, and I joined facebook when they only allowed college students. I used to use it every day, now I barely log in to facebook once a week. Whenever I see a commenting system or site that wants access to my facebook profile, I refuse. I stopped liking facebook when they set it up so I 'liked' the page for every TV show I listed in my interests, allowing them to infect my news feed with corporate crap. For the same reason, I don't allow any apps access to my profile.

      Besides that, people under 30 aren't the only ones who should have input into this. An e-mail address is sufficient for commenting on most news sites, and it should be sufficient for this. Facebook as an option is fine, but that should be a lower priority than providing access to everyone. Government is supposed to be about everyone having a voice.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    81. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'True. However, Facebook is currently drawing in members of the younger generations, and will, until...'

      ...they notice that meemaw and peepaw are also there and want to befriend them.

    82. Re:via Facebook only? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The solution would have been for the dumbasses to use the right tool (email) in the first place.

      I suppose it's to be expected, though. How many times have you seen email used where something like usenet would have made more sense?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    83. Re:via Facebook only? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      facebook isn't the only way people have of communicating with their congressmen.

      It is if you want to communicate about this particular subject.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    84. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man up a create a temporary fb account dickwad

      FFS, at least they are being open to communication - a rare event in modern america

    85. Re:via Facebook only? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can use your telephone to call your congressman

      From TFA: The Congressmen who serve on these committees are soliciting questions from the public to ask TSA officials at the hearing ... provided the public is willing to submit their questions via Facebook.

      You can send a letter via USPS.

      From TFA: The Congressmen who serve on these committees are soliciting questions from the public to ask TSA officials at the hearing ... provided the public is willing to submit their questions via Facebook.

      You can FAX him.

      From TFA: The Congressmen who serve on these committees are soliciting questions from the public to ask TSA officials at the hearing ... provided the public is willing to submit their questions via Facebook.

      You can take the bus over to his local office and chat with staff, if they are there.

      You'd probably get arrested for tairsum if you tried.

      And from TFA: The Congressmen who serve on these committees are soliciting questions from the public to ask TSA officials at the hearing ... provided the public is willing to submit their questions via Facebook.

      You can send him email (if he has it)

      From TFA: The Congressmen who serve on these committees are soliciting questions from the public to ask TSA officials at the hearing ... provided the public is willing to submit their questions via Facebook.

      use the congressional web interface to send messages to your congressman.

      From TFA: The Congressmen who serve on these committees are soliciting questions from the public to ask TSA officials at the hearing ... provided the public is willing to submit their questions via Facebook.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    86. Re:via Facebook only? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I were an oppressive government, I'd use the additional information about the person posting the questions to bias the discussion. e.g., their age and gender, where they're from, where they grew up, who their friends are, whether or not they're politically active and their political bent. I'd also discard questions from people without a reasonable circle of friends (they're probably fake).

      If I were the TSA and had random far-reaching powers, I might start using Facebook to find out who my enemies are, who's speaking out against me and where that social meme originated. It's a handy database.

      This is a dangerous precedent for so many reasons.

    87. Re:via Facebook only? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'm also in the under-30 demographic for a couple more months, and I also don't have a Facebook account. Most of my friends did 2-3 years ago, but a lot of them now either closed their accounts or stopped using them. I don't know of any who have stopped checking their email in the same period. People drift on and off instant messaging - I've recently shut down my AIM / ICQ Jabber transport because all of my contacts there now also have an XMPP account (most via Google).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    88. Re:via Facebook only? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      STARTED? They've started admitting it, maybe. All along it has been more difficult to post political content to facebook than vapid bullshit.

      I've done numerous tests where several politically-charged links failed in a row; their previews come up quickly, so I know facebook can access the sites, but when you click submit the link doesn't appear attached to the status update. You used to be able to tell when this had happened to someone's post because it was posted "via links" but they removed that tag from the updates so that you can't tell when a link has been removed.

      Even worse, I went back through my timeline and lo and behold, a bunch of the links I've posted are now missing, and furthermore, the ones that are missing are links with political content. Links to some vapid entertainment bullshit are still there.

      Facebook has been censoring political content for years. It's what got me to start using G+, in fact. So far everything I've posted there remains visible at least to me, so if Google is hiding my political speech from people, I don't know about it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    89. Re:via Facebook only? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Why would you have a problem if you could ONLY vote at Walmart?

      I wouldn't, however I would have a problem if you only got your ballot paper by showing your Walmart loyalty card, which is a closer analogy.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    90. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama had to sign that in order to obtain military funding. It's not as if he could have refused to sign, and told Congress that the indefinite detention of American citizens is fucking crazy. Oh, wait! No-one with any regard at all for human rights would have come within 20 feet of that act. Fuck having "reservations", Obama. You just shouldn't have signed the thing at all. What else are you going to sign in to law? How about if a bill to fix the roads included a clause allowing the TSA to execute babies? What the fuckity fuck will you do, sign it but tell everyone that you felt a bit bad doing so? No, you refuse to sign such shitty and dangerous things in to law.

      Obama and whoever was responsible Congress for that detention clause needs to be dragged out of their home at 3am, bundled in a C-130 and flown to Gitmo to experience an indefinite period of field research in to the psychological effects of being kidnapped by your their government.

      Obama's fortunate to have followed Bush Jnr. He'd be looking pretty fucking useless if he had to follow a president with balls and a respect for human rights.

    91. Re:via Facebook only? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It also makes your information incredibly valuable. I've said this before, but it is worth repeating:

      Most elections are decided by the 10% who change their vote between elections. You typically have a large group that will vote for their favourite party whatever happens, and then a few swing voters. Political parties spend a lot of time and effort trying to work out who these people are, what the important issues are to them, and persuading them to change their vote. If you fill in this information, Facebook knows that TSA-related issues are important to you. It can already fairly accurately correlate your broad political opinions from other information. You're providing them with information that they can sell to political parties for quite a lot of money.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    92. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure most people know of this, but just in case...

      http://rt.com/usa/news/joke-marilyn-bryan-monroe-197/

      Detained like fucking terrorists or drug dealers, all for making jokey Twitter posts that any normal person would, particularly after interviewing these tourists, realise were jokes. When asked about my plans for my stay in the US, if I answer "to have a smashing time", will I be dragged away on suspicion that I'll be going on a vandalism spree?

      Will the British Government be filing a protest over this shoddy treatment? Not fucking likely.

    93. Re:via Facebook only? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If they put up a website and allow you to comment there, you still have to agree to a third pary's terms of service (your ISP) to participate

      No, you have to agree to an ISP's terms of service. You can go to your local library and use their connection. You can use a smartphone, or you can use a wired ISP at home. If you've got a job, you can probably use your work network connection. You have lots of choices.

      This is very different from Facebook, where you have to provide personal information to a company that exists for the sole purpose of selling personal information and you have no alternatives.

      This is not nitpicking about virtually meaningless ideals, this is a vital question in a modern democracy: does it exist solely at the whim of private entities? If a single company is granted the power to censor communication between the electorate and their representatives, then you don't have democracy. Complaining about it now, when it's just a single use, is much better than waiting until Congress decides that all communication with voters should go via Facebook.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    94. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This problem is much cheaper to solve: get a facebook account. The only tie back to you is an email address, and you can buffer that through a throwaway gmail account.

      I can't. One day I plan to start a website with the word "book" in the name. The TOS for Facebook prevents one from doing that.

    95. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the votes are already sold for low low prices...

    96. Re:via Facebook only? by tburkhol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Besides that, people under 30 aren't the only ones who should have input into this.

      This is very important to remember. People under 30 were under 19 when TSA was imposed. They've lived their entire traveling lives under the 'new' system, and have little or no recall of the more reasonable and traveler-friendly screening processes. By choosing a communication mode biased towards younger people, they're excluding a large portion of our greater social memory.

    97. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad we can't submit comments through WoW. I kind of like the idea of a complaint spelled out with dead gnomes.

      http://boingboing.net/2007/07/09/goldfarmers-beat-adb.html

    98. Re:via Facebook only? by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not just the Guardian. there's several websites that have gone the way of requiring you allow their app to access your profile in order to click the link that somebody posted. I have platform apps disabled, and when I encounter this one, I move on, but I do feel sorry for all the people who don't realize that allowing this app to access your profile means you just gave all of your personal information to the website whose story you were trying to read.

    99. Re:via Facebook only? by McGruber · · Score: 3, Informative

      Facebook isn't the only option.

      The Committee on Oversight and Reform's webpage, linked to in the article, says otherwise:

      Members will solicit questions from the public via their Facebook pages to ask TSA officials at the hearing.

    100. Re:via Facebook only? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      ^^ This.

      It's a flawed analogy. As long as the polling station follows the set rules for how a polling station is to be run, who cares where it is?

      And before some nitwit replies that by this logic, they could have the polling station at the top of Everest, accessibility is one of the set rules for how a polling station is to be run.

    101. Re:via Facebook only? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      In the UK, you don't need a stamp to send a letter to the House of Parliament. It has a freepost address.

    102. Re:via Facebook only? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      I can only vote at my local Synagogue as their hall is what was chosen for the local polling station. In other places it might be a church hall or a school.

    103. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the British tourists who on arrival were detailed in a cell for 16 hours, and then put on a plane back home, experienced all of this because of a couple of tweets they made that somehow came to the attention of the DHS, I wouldn't want to make it any easier for these fucks to stumble across such things.

      http://rt.com/usa/news/joke-marilyn-bryan-monroe-197/

      Detained like terrorists because he tweeted about digging up Marilyn Monroe's corpse, and was going to "destroy America". Even after explaining that destroy was not meant literally, it being slang for getting pissed, it was presumably assumed that his intention to exhume Ms Monroe was genuine and that deportation was the only way to safeguard her bones. Fuckers - why does Congress even need these stories from us. Just read the news! This is just one of many very public stories that suggest the DHS/TSA is an out of control wannabe state secret police. How can we possibly trust these fucks to safeguard the nation if they can't differentiate between harmless tourists and terrorists. For that matter, how many terrorists have they caught during their Airport security theatrics? Fuck all. Their main contribution has been in making a trip to America seem like stepping back in to the Soviet fucking Union, complete with its humorless asshat fuck heads wasting their time fucking up the holidays and journeys of obviously innocent people. Who's minding the shop while they're fucking around with tourists? Does the DHS really have enough manpower to afford to have agents wasting time on such stupidity - if so, trim that fucking budget and cull the DHS from to bottom.

    104. Re:via Facebook only? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I don't feel sorry for them, they're helping to create a trap for other users because they're too dumb and/or disinterested to think about what they're doing before they do it. They're part of the problem. I don't want to shoot them or anything, I just don't feel bad for them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    105. Re:via Facebook only? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      That's probably what it is.

      I'll be devil's advocate for a moment and suggest that maybe someone had the bright idea that this would cut down on dupes and fakes, without realizing the implications.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    106. Re:via Facebook only? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      He seems to believe that only people banned from Walmart should not be allowed to vote.

      There are people banned from Walmart?

      But why?!?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    107. Re:via Facebook only? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Umm... how about being banned from accessing Walmart for some reason? Let's assume I didn't agree with their business policies and was shown the door with the "recommendation" never to come back.

      Which is, btw, entirely also possible with Facebook.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    108. Re:via Facebook only? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Admit it, you want to increase voter turnout.

      Plus, I guess the pandering to the "thinkofthechildren" crowd would be over...

      Where do I sign?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    109. Re:via Facebook only? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Voting has turned into something akin to religion. You get empty promises and you still put faith in them. Then you see that those promises are empty, but you still return there and continue believing in it.

      Yeah, democracy has become a faith while we didn't look.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    110. Re:via Facebook only? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      E pluribus sanguinem?

      You want more blood?

    111. Re:via Facebook only? by ae1294 · · Score: 2

      But if you don't censor the web, then the serial killers / pedophiles / terrorists win!

      Congress????

    112. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Government is supposed to be about everyone having a voice."

      Ah, naive, idealistic youngsters.

    113. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were an oppressive government, I'd use the additional information about the person posting the questions to bias the discussion. e.g., their age and gender, where they're from, where they grew up, who their friends are, whether or not they're politically active and their political bent. I'd also discard questions from people without a reasonable circle of friends (they're probably fake).

      If I were the TSA and had random far-reaching powers, I might start using Facebook to find out who my enemies are, who's speaking out against me and where that social meme originated. It's a handy database.

      This is a dangerous precedent for so many reasons.

      And you just listed most of them. MOD PARENT UP!

    114. Re:via Facebook only? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Inside joke from a Usenet group.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    115. Re:via Facebook only? by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Like^W+1.

    116. Re:via Facebook only? by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Yes, how sad that someone who refuses to use facebook for any reason won't get to participate in anything that happens on facebook.

      TSA-groping happens on Facebook, too? Shocking!

    117. Re:via Facebook only? by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Man up a create a temporary fb account dickwad

      Violates Facebook's ToS.

      FFS, at least they are being open to communication - a rare event in modern america

      Open to communication via a private locked-down service. Yeah, open.

    118. Re:via Facebook only? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      For one, I'm guessing the woman that pulled out the pepper spray last Black Friday won't be welcome at that Walmart again.

    119. Re:via Facebook only? by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

      So I guess the next elections should be held at Walmart?

      More likely Neiman and Marcus. Just saying.

    120. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their "entire" lives?

      Um.

      Children/minors travel too, you know. Some of them relatively frequently.

    121. Re:via Facebook only? by John.Banister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If I have to join Facebook to talk to Congress, does that mean that Facebook has to be regulated as a public utility?

    122. Re:via Facebook only? by Rubinstien · · Score: 1

      I realize someone has modded you as a troll, but on the off-chance that you were serious...

      No he is not "retarded". And he is not alone.

      I also read terms-of-service, and if I agree to them, I follow them. If I am not willing to follow them, I do not agree to them.

      You might call it retarded. I call it being principled. It is important to me to be trustworthy. If my agreement to terms is going to have any value it must *always* have value. Even if I am the only one who will ever know the difference. Especially so. I do not believe in situational ethics.

      The grandfather post claims that "everyone" on Slashdot laughs at shrink wrap licenses because they are "unenforceable". So what? What does enforceability have to do with it? I may not like them, and I might think that there is no possibility that I would ever be caught violating the agreement, but I follow them anyway, and if I won't, I do without. I have no music that I do not have the actual CD or vinyl for, save for 2 albums I bought off iTunes, no movies that I have not purchased, and no commercial software that I do not have the actual license and serial number for. I may boot my VM of Windows XP Pro only once or twice a year, but the copy I have installed there is bought and paid for. My kids know they are not allowed to download music or anime without paying for it. A friend of my eldest loaned her a ripped 'Ween' CD last week -- she liked a few of the songs, so she *bought* them. When she gave the CD back, he told her he had meant for her to keep it -- she told him no, but thanks.

      I also do not have a Facebook account. No one in my immediate family does. I would gladly have taken a few minutes to share a couple of TSA stories otherwise. Interestingly, one has to do with a trip to Washington, D.C. a few years ago with my daughter, at the invitation of our Congressman. This was before the backscatter scanners came online, but they were being installed at both airports we passed through. My daughter, 14 at the time and very shy about her body, asked about them. I explained the concept. I could have predicted her reaction. She was totally freaked out by the idea. If they would have been online, I am 100% sure we would not have made the trip, because there is not a chance she would have walked through that line knowing there was a possibility of being sent through that machine or having a pat-down as an alternative, and I would not have made her do it, either.

      The airport wasn't the only theater, though. We went through so many checkpoints at government buildings and museums while we were there. In many cases, the security holes were very obvious, while all the while I had to repeatedly take off my shoes, belt, empty my pockets, put my keys, coins, camera, wallet, and phone in a bucket, and then step through scanners only to repeat the process again a few minutes later -- just to be part of the show of security. At one point, our Congress-critter was taking us on a short-cut beneath the Capitol building, and he and his assistant had to stand and wait each time we had to go through a checkpoint. It really ended up not being much of a short-cut in terms of time -- for him and his assistant, it would normally have been -- because they got to walk around the scanners without going through that ordeal (which is part of the problem, if you want my opinion).

      Unrelated but noteworthy: at one point, while standing on the Capitol steps, our Congressman gave my daughter his business card and told her it was her "get-out-of-jail-free card", and that she should call him if she ever needed him to pull any strings. I thought it was a totally inappropriate comment, particularly for a Congressman to make to a 14-year-old girl. When he saw the sour look on my face, he quickly tried to recover by turning to me and saying, "but I am sure she'll never need it." Meanwhile, my daughter was rolling her eyes while his back was turned. I am not sure how much good the card would be now, since he's no longer in Congress. He retired later that year, ostensibly for personal reasons, though at the time there was a lot of noise starting to be made back home about some of his ethically-questionable financial dealings.

    123. Re:via Facebook only? by scifiber_phil · · Score: 1

      Good point. That is the exact reason I don't get store loyalty cards using a false name. The moral high ground always trumps expediency.

    124. Re:via Facebook only? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      So set up a fake account. Goddamn, are you that unresourceful?

    125. Re:via Facebook only? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Depends on the state. The sex offender registries are mish-mash of half-baked thinking and poor design.

    126. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      "Members will solicit questions from the public via their Facebook pages to ask TSA officials at the hearing." RTFA. Facebook is the only option. There is no suggestion that letters submitted to your congressman via email or US Post will be considered. In fact, there is no suggestion that questions will even be solicited from the audience.

      I read TFA. Now you read it. There is no "only" in that statement. It's an affirmative statement of action, not a denial. Do you really believe that a congressman will tell his staffer "go to facebook" if the staffer says "you ought to ask TSA ..."? Don't be stupid. It doesn't need to be said. Just like it doesn't need to be said that a congressman can use any other means of communications to get questions.

      Do you really think that when someone tells you that you can now post messages on his facebook wall that he will no longer accept phone calls or email? He may note accept them from you anymore, after you jump down his throat for being on facebook at all, and then flame him for deciding to make his sole means of communicating with anyone via facebook.

      The only thing that the statement you quoted says is that there will be a facebook method of communication. It does not eliminate anything.

    127. Re:via Facebook only? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The Committee on Oversight and Reform's webpage, linked to in the article, says otherwise: Members will solicit questions from the public via their Facebook pages to ask TSA officials at the hearing.

      Where is the word "only", or even the implication of "only", in that statement? It isn't there. Congressmen aren't going to shut off their phones or stop reading email or refuse to open their mail until Tuesday just because this webpage says that comments can be sent via facebook.

      Congressmen have web contact forms listed here. Did anyone jump up and down and rant about how congressmen wouldn't take phone calls or letters or regular email anymore when that page went up saying "contact your congressman here"? And did they all use "troll" and "flamebait" to mod people who told them that congressmen will still have email and phones and letters and whatever even with a new way of communication set up, like someone is doing here? I don't think so.

      No, I think most rational people can see a statement that "you can do X" as meaning "you can do X", not as "Y and Z are no longer allowed." This article happens to deal with three hot buttons for slashdot (facebook, politicians and the TSA), so any possible rant material blows up into a full flame, and anyone who tries to put out the fire is modded "troll" or "flamebait" as retaliation.

      The only way this conflagration could have been worse is if the article said that congressmen will accept comments about the TSA using the iPod app for facebook.

    128. Re:via Facebook only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This problem is much cheaper to solve: get a facebook account. The only tie back to you is an email address, and you can buffer that through a throwaway gmail account.

      I won't repeat wat others already said on being principled about agreeing with terms of service you really disagree with for opportunistic reasons. One problem I have on top of that is that if I would create a facebook account I would be counted as a facebook user. My account would become part of the statistics and of the "everybody is on facebook" argument. It is a vote in support of something I oppose, effectively, and I just won't do that.

    129. Re:via Facebook only? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That depends on state, but in some at least it is a mandatory registration.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Bruce has been scrubbed from the hearing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not sure who's choice that was... "Mr. Schneier will not testify at Monday's hearing (UPDATE: 3/23/12)"

    1. Re:Bruce has been scrubbed from the hearing... by nazsco · · Score: 1

      and what about a hearing on the oversight committee for taking that long for a hearing on TSA?

      crooks watching crooks.

    2. Re:Bruce has been scrubbed from the hearing... by peektwice · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the only people left on the witness list are representatives from TSA and Homeland Security. Schneier was apparently the only voice of reason on the witness panel, and he's been scratched. If I had to guess, which I don't, I'd say the gub-mint scratched him.

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
  3. Questions by Wowsers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it right to sexually molest every man, woman, and child and get away with it under pretext of security? How does the USA like it's foreign tourist trade now that it's dropped off a cliff?

    That is all.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Questions by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is it right to sexually molest every man, woman, and child and get away with it under pretext of security?

      I think we all agree that it is not.
      A better question is - does Congress realize that they have the authority to dismantle TSA? Or are they simply estimating the size of the additional bureaucracy to add to the TSA?

    2. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me on the doll where the TSA agent touched you...

    3. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dropped off a cliff? [citation needed]

    4. Re:Questions by Virtucon · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's because most people are sheep. They go along with it under the pretense that it makes them feel safe. Everybody knows that after 9/11 that the same kind of crap would never happen on an airline in the US. Why? Look at the dumbshit underwear bomber kid, look at the AA flight attendant who went nuts a couple of weeks ago. The passengers took matters into their own hands to help resolve the issue. People will get up and defend themselves so unless would-be attackers come heavily armed there won't be a repeat. What the TSA has done is create long lines and an illusion of security. I fly every week of the year and I can tell you that I have more of a chance of falling out of the sky from a flock of geese than I do a would-be terrorist on a plane. What I want to know is why the TSA isn't installing anti-aircraft guns around airports to take care of the bird menace!

       

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:Questions by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      There shouldn't be any screening on domestic flights, just as there's no screening if I drive my car cross-country (and then drive it into a Federal Reserve and blow it up). We have to maintain at least SOME of our rights, including the right to travel wherever we wish internal to the U.S. border.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like there needs to be more security on the roads. TSA checkpoints on all State borders!

    7. Re:Questions by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      That part seems to be missing. Could you please show me some other dolls? Where can I purchase a doll for my girlfriend to point out where she was touched?

    8. Re:Questions by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      How does the USA like it's foreign tourist trade now that it's dropped off a cliff?

      I'd like to fact check that statement. It's a shame that the government doesn't keep track of those numbers. Oh wait... they totally do!

      Let's see:
      year - millions of visitors - change from previous year
      2000 - 44.6 - n/a
      2001 - 39.2 - -12%
      2002 - 35.9 - -8%
      2003 - 34.5 - -4%

      Steep drop in the years following 9/11, but wait, what's this?

      2004 - 38.2 - +11%
      2005 - 41.1 - +8%
      2006 - 43.5 - +6%
      2007 - 48.4 - +11%
      2008 - 50.5 - +4%
      2009 - 54.9 - +9%
      2010 - 59.7 - +9%
      2011 - 62.3 - +4%

      Wow, US tourism is absolutely booming! That's an increase of at least 4% (average of 8%) every year for nearly a decade! That greatly exceeds the world's average birth rate, especially when you consider that the birth rate is lower in places where most tourists come from. In light of these numbers, perhaps you'd like to reconsider your position?

    9. Re:Questions by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't ask the second question unless I had numbers showing it HAS dropped off a cliff, otherwise you might undermine your point. The first question could be framed a bit better too: "Is it right to touch US citizens all over their body - regardless of how young they are - in the name of security theater?".

    10. Re:Questions by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Now a real warning needs to be issued here. Consider the TSA, consider the nature of the people involved, consider their access to highly vulnerable transport infrastructure.

      What will TSA agents do to protect their jobs and their piece of petty power, how far would they go and what are they capable of doing to justify their existence.

      Quite a significant percentage of TSA agents have proven to be of the very worst sort, so would these people bring down a airliner to protect their power base? This investigation could prove quite dangerous.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Questions by Obfuscant · · Score: 0, Troll

      People will get up and defend themselves so unless would-be attackers come heavily armed there won't be a repeat.

      The last few attempts have been bombs. When a terrorist gets up and goes into the lavatory, there is nobody else around him to notice that he's assembling and detonating a bomb. Yes, for aircraft takeover attempts, the passengers will use what few defensive and offensive weapons they can make to stop the takeover, but bombs are a different story. Had the shoe bomber been smart enough to go to the bathroom before trying to light his shoes off, he might have been successful.

      What I want to know is why the TSA isn't installing anti-aircraft guns around airports to take care of the bird menace!

      Because birds aren't aircraft?

      But I understand what you are trying to say. Airports with bird problems do. Like this, or this. The problem is talked about here, for just one example.

      Even so, the conservationists are often opposed to such things, saying the birds have the right to be there and yada yada yada and if a plane runs into one it's the planes fault.

    12. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What these figures do not disclose is what percentage of these "visitors" are illegal aliens, which part are new Al Qaeda / CIA / Special Forces trainees (the "Farm", & "School of the Americas"), and which part are foreign troops training for USA "crowd control" and FEMA camp "operations".

      The USA government puts USA citizens through far more rigorous security checks than illegal aliens slipping through the USA's porous borders. The TSA has little to do with actual "national security" and a lot more to do with conditioning citizens to the establishment of martial law / police state.

      Considering that the USA has military installations in at least 120 countries, and "kinetic actions" scheduled for or already under way in at least 8 countries, there have to be many "expatriates" undergoing appropriate "training & indoctrination" within USA borders. I doubt if most of these have available free time to visit USA tourist traps.

      Foreign troops routinely rotate into the USA for combined operations training, and not limited to only an expanded NATO which has absorbed former Warsaw Pact nations.

      When you can come up with better clarification of the demographics of "visitors" to the USA, I might be inclined to alter my opinion.

    13. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's because most people are sheep.

      What an original idea! You sir, have proven that you are not a sheep!

    14. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You even brought in a mention of the Warsaw Pact (for some reason). Awesome.

    15. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow yeah -

      It's almost like the tourism trade is more linked to economic factors and currency exchange rates than anything else!

      who would have thought

    16. Re:Questions by nazsco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      happen to have a comparisson with global tourism size?

      what if for every other country it doubled instead of 12% a year?

    17. Re:Questions by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's an interesting question. I did some digging, and came up with two things. The first is a new-found respect for the US government's data organization, which for all its flaws is way more accessible than Britain's or France's. The second is a document out of Germany that mercifully covers tourism across the EU, so I didn't have to dig up any more sources.

      You can read it for yourself (there's some interesting stats on who goes where and how much they spend), but the upshot is the global average growth is around 4%, and the EU is a bit below average at 3.4%, whereas the US is quite a bit above average (around 8%), as shown by the numbers from my prior post. Interestingly, the Middle East is seeing the most growth of anywhere in the world, at a whopping 14% pace. You'd think people would be avoiding the region given the instability, but apparently that's not the case.

    18. Re:Questions by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, the Middle East is seeing the most growth of anywhere in the world, at a whopping 14% pace. You'd think people would be avoiding the region given the instability, but apparently that's not the case.

      It is all the people coming to stay at jihadi training camps.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    19. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, fellow ACer. What was the political and economic alignment of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Romania 20 years ago? Can you even find these countries on a map? Thought not.

    20. Re:Questions by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because most people are sheep.

      What an original idea! You sir, have proven that you are not a sheep!

      Very much against your original intent, you have provided a great illustration of a certain blindness principle.

      When someone makes a good point that's true and valid, and you happen to find it painfully uncomfortable because it's a bit too true, why that's easy! Just get political! Take the point they made, put a little twist on it, and turn it around to try to falsely reflect it back on the person pointing it out. This has two effects. First, it takes a generally true statement and makes it into a personal ad-hominem statement. That's a sure distraction technique. Second, it discredits the truth of the statement without ever having to formulate a refutation. It's the lazy, stupid man's way of effecting a dismissal.

      And all the while you get to remain in your comfortable little bubble where most people are not blind sheep who place far too much importance on things that can be centrally controlled like mass media. That's why you stoop to what amount to crude PR tactics against this poster: he was threatening to pop your bubble, making him the enemy, making any below-the-belt dismissal immediately appealing to you.

      This capacity, this mentality is why people don't rise up en masse and reject the bullshit they're spoonfed on a daily basis. Because attacking the messenger like a spoiled child is so much easier, and so much more convenient than taking on severe systemic problems.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    21. Re:Questions by fluffy99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, US tourism is absolutely booming! That's an increase of at least 4% (average of 8%) every year for nearly a decade!

      The reason for that is the weak US dollar. We have a govt that is artificially keeping "inflation" low to convince the public we aren't in a recession, but at the same time printing money like crazy and devaluing the dollar. We have lots of foreigners coming here for vacation because it's cheap for them.

      http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/us-dollar-value/2627

    22. Re:Questions by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      What these figures do not disclose is what percentage of these "visitors" are illegal aliens, which part are new Al Qaeda / CIA / Special Forces trainees (the "Farm", & "School of the Americas"), and which part are foreign troops training for USA "crowd control" and FEMA camp "operations".

      I'm really curious to know how many Al Qaeda ops the TSA has caught by groping my aunt or my little sister. I think the percentages speak for themselves.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    23. Re:Questions by artor3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That was my first thought (the weak dollar part, not the conspiracy theory part), but it fails to explain why US tourism has continued to rise in the 2008-2011 period, despite the dollar rebounding during those years. Your chart stops at the start of 2008, which was about as low the dollar got. It hit bottom a few months later, in April of 2008, at around 72 points. Since then, it has bounced back and is hovering around 80 points. Here's my source.

    24. Re:Questions by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think they'll bring down an airliner, but I'm pretty sure they would have no qualms about putting their critics on the no-fly list. Probably doesn't take much to get on that list, and it's really difficult to get removed.

    25. Re:Questions by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      Thanks for actually posting facts. It's refreshing, for a change. You must be new here....

      Anecdotal: I no longer fly due to TSA regulations. I either drive or take a train. Yes, it's tremendously inconvenient. Yes, I hate it. No, I don't think there's a lot of people like me...

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    26. Re:Questions by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Congress realize that they have the authority to dismantle TSA?

      They do, but imagine someone stands up and decides to dismantle the TSA. Then a terrorist attack happens, and the next election, his opponent uses that against him to get him voted out of office.

      Who wants to deal with that? Better to let someone else own the problem, and instead get re-elected for being on the right side of another Important issue, like abortion. People get just as upset about that issue as TSA, and abortion isn't going to change much more in the next 20 years than it has in the last 20 years. If you do nothing, you can always say, "I have stuck to my principles! I have never flip-flopped!"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Questions by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Thankyou for being a person who bases your opinions on facts.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:Questions by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      But, GI Joe just might go berserk if you don't confiscate his 4" long plastic rifle! At 6" high, GI Joe is obviously a very threatening figure, well trained in all sorts of combat situations. If he were allowed on an airplane with all of his weaponry, he might hijack the aircraft and fly it into Hasbro in revenge for malformed privates.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    29. Re:Questions by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      Which is why after the whole Richard Reid incident we had to start taking our shoes off. Then there was the "suspected" plans using mixed chemicals so then no more tubes of toothpaste or taking your Starbucks through security.

      The fact is that the government has always been on the back foot and now we have the backscatter devices because some dumbass tried to blow himself up using his underwear and even experts say the amount of explosives he had wouldn't have severely damaged the aircraft. Because of this the flying public is now subjected to a defective system that has had no independent validation on it's safety and that for some strange reason the TSA says they won't test.

      Other than the chemical incident all of the onboard episodes occurred and if it weren't for faulty planning or chemicals or circumstances something would have happened despite all of the in-place security. That's pretty poor considering how much we've spent on all of this security theater.

      Sorry, I prefer not to be one of the sheep.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    30. Re:Questions by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      This capacity, this mentality is why people don't rise up en masse and reject the bullshit they're spoonfed on a daily basis. Because attacking the messenger like a spoiled child is so much easier, and so much more convenient than taking on severe systemic problems.

      This.

      Thanks for putting it so succinctly. Bravo,sir!

      Normalcy bias is strong, and people will defend their comfortable little mental picture of the world quite aggressively, even up to actual violence at times, rather than deal with both their own self-deception and the prospect of having to take actions they may politically/ideologically disagree with to deal with the actual reality of the situation/problem at hand.

      The tactics of the GP you discuss which are based on normalcy bias are well-recognized and even included as part of the political tactics to silence opposing voices in "Rules For Radicals" by Saul Alinsky.

      Personally, I can't understand how a political movement could possibly paint itself as being for the empowerment of the masses, when it openly views silencing any opposing voices or embarrassing/inconvenient questions from the masses as standard and normal.

      I wonder if a sexual survey conducted on those with leftist political views would show a predominance of "bottoms" (submissives) as opposed to population norms? After all, they seem to want to be told what to do, how to live, how much money to make, and even what to think by government. They keep voting for politicians who advocate for those things, after all.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    31. Re:Questions by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Maybe that's just all the canadians crossing the border as our dollar approached parity?

      Only partially joking, I can't check if those are flight only arrivals or not since I can't load up US govt data from canada.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    32. Re:Questions by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Canadian dollar is at parity right now, mainly over parity for the last little while. So weak dollar is still a good hypothesis considering most visitors are from canada anyways.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    33. Re:Questions by dbIII · · Score: 1

      A better question is - does Congress realize that they have the authority to dismantle TSA?

      Yes, but sadly there are so many jobs involved and so much money going into so many pockets that it could be political suicide to do the right thing and shut it down. It it gets shut down at all by anyone other than an immediately retiring unpopular President expect a long, slow blame smearing exercise before anything happens. At least that's what I think after watching too much "Yes Minister", "House of Cards" etc.

    34. Re:Questions by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      I'm convinced that pretty much the same reasoning was how we ended up in Iraq. Go with the flow and you're no more culpable than anyone else if there's nothing there, and you're on the right side if there is; complain, and you score some points if you turn out to be right but you're out on your ass guaranteed if you're wrong.

      No moderately informed person could have thought it was a good idea (at least not for the public reasons), let alone Congressmen, whose pretty much only job aside from "get elected" is "be informed". I blame cowardly political maneuvering--betting for the war on the (very) off chance that even a quarter of the bullshit was true.

    35. Re:Questions by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Let's just touch the left ear, and call it tactile aura-reading which can pick up the ill-intent of terrorists.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    36. Re:Questions by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That was a little different, I mean, there might have been some of that too. Bush did a really good job campaigning across the country, trying to convince people it was a good idea. He didn't just say, "We should go to war!" He worked hard to convince people that it was the right thing to do. He waited, biding his time, until the moment was right. Finally, by the time we actually went to war, approximately 80% of the country supported it. No sane politician dared oppose it, because their constituency supported it by such a broad amount.

      I remember it was a really depressing time. I was upset with Bush because I thought he was pushing the country to a war we didn't want. Then I realized that yes, most of the country DID want to go to war. So I stopped being upset with Bush and started working on my fellow Americans, to help them become less warlike.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    37. Re:Questions by trawg · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I think there are a lot of people from here (Australia) travelling to the US now that our dollar has reached parity (or is often worth more) than yours. We're dumping money into your economy for sure, but it seems we're able to do it because your economy has tanked and now our money is worth twice as much there as it is here!

    38. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's an idiot. Not only hiss spelling is deficient, he pulls his numbers out of his ass.
      Just check it yourself.

      http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number+of+tourists+in+the+USA

    39. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Which is why after the whole Richard Reid [wikipedia.org] incident we had to start taking our shoes off. Then there was the "suspected" plans using mixed chemicals [wikipedia.org] so then no more tubes of toothpaste or taking your Starbucks through security.'

      We'll have to wait until the Anus-Bomber gets caught.
      People won't stand the proctologists.

    40. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I absolutely love your tone. Never mind the thoroughness slowly becoming more popular thanks to [citation needed].

    41. Re:Questions by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Wow, US tourism is absolutely booming!

      Don't use that word when you're in the security line!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re:Questions by Teun · · Score: 1
      What's wrong with city and county lines that they shouldn't be defended?

      You must be pro big government!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    43. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, I have to wonder if the TSA would indeed introduce rectal searches if some Koran thumping cunt were to buy his ticket to Allah's brothel in the sky by shoving explosives up his ass?

      If security continues to incorporate such new and novel checks in response to each individual attack, where the fuck are we going to be in 20 years? It's take 3 hours for each search, and by the end of it the TSE agent is going to have more intimate physical knowledge of my body than my girlfriend and my doctor combined.

    44. Re:Questions by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I know quite a few people who've visited the Middle East. It can be a cheap stop-off on the way to the far east (from Europe), or a close-ish place that's not European, but still has plenty of culture, history etc.

      Does Turkey count? Loads of people visit Turkey. Just looking at one budget airline (Easyjet), they have flights to Turkey, Isreal and Jordan.

      Also this was easy to find, but I knew to go straight to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/

    45. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's of course the deterrent affect that they can point to. In 2001 we had a single 9/11 - that is bad, but what happened in all years since? Exactly, not even one 9/11 in over ten years!

      Some might say that in recent plots, it's been mainly the diligence of passengers that foiled them, but think of how many 9/11s would have been attempted if terrorists were not living in fear of having their genitals groped by TSA goons. Homosexuality is absolutely taboo in Islam, which is why the TSA places such a focus on genitals. Many of these terrorists are sexually repressed, in some case remaining virgins until alarmingly late in life. Some will die as virgins, expecting to pop their cherry in Allah's House of Tail. Given their sexual inexperience, it's quite possible that they'd pop boners at the slightest touch to their crotch. Becoming aroused when being touched by another man is surely homosexuality, meaning that terrorists are far more reluctant to risk damning themselves in Allah's eyes. Of course not all terrorists are muslims - some are just Christian fundies. Fortunately most people looking to carry out such acts are invariably religious fundamentalists with major sexual hang-ups, so either way it's going to work.

      Your aunt and sister probably look a bit mannish, and are acceptable casualities in the TSA's bold war on Terra! You want 9/11s happening every week? Well I sure fucking don't, so why don't you love America or get the fuck out?

    46. Re:Questions by zyzko · · Score: 1

      I wonder if a sexual survey conducted on those with leftist political views would show a predominance of "bottoms" (submissives) as opposed to population norms? After all, they seem to want to be told what to do, how to live, how much money to make, and even what to think by government. They keep voting for politicians who advocate for those things, after all

      I was with you until this last ad-hominem garbage (nice touch taking sexual preference to political discussion) you came out with in the last paragraph. You are aware that "leftist" views have generated more radical and even violent revolutions than any "right" movements? (The final outcome has not by average been very great but the "leftist" cannot be blamed for the lack of trying...) - I would attribute the "normalcy" to the middle-class who depending on the country votes for the majority; be it by US standard "left" or "left-leaning right" and be comfortable with it - and it suits the majority fine.

    47. Re:Questions by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I was with you until this last ad-hominem garbage (nice touch taking sexual preference to political discussion) you came out with in the last paragraph.

      Yeah, that's not typical of me. I was tired and just going "stream-of-consciousness" there, I think.

      You are aware that "leftist" views have generated more radical and even violent revolutions than any "right" movements? (The final outcome has not by average been very great but the "leftist" cannot be blamed for the lack of trying...)

      Yes, I'm quite aware. I was referring to the leftists in the general population, not the few leaders, appearing to exhibit submissive tendencies in desiring more control of their lives by others. The left's leaders are a whole different animal.

      The leadership on the left's behavior and dialog suggests that they may have a God complex. They seem to want to control every aspect of everyone's lives. Given that, it's no wonder they want to suppress/eliminate religion. It competes with their vision of themselves as Supreme Being.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    48. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because birds aren't aircraft?

      I'm sure the definition is their primary concern over unimportant factors such as danger to the surrounding environment, negative press, and insane costs to deploy against the considerable bird population.

    49. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 14% in the middle east is U.S. military presence. It just sounds nicer when labeled "tourism."

    50. Re:Questions by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Dude, those are all terrorists casing the joint.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    51. Re:Questions by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Don't think them, think just a few out of already warped social cluster. Averages they can be cruel. When you created socially distorted sub-cultures, here a culture that routinely humiliates and violates people's deeply personal space, who devalue the people they publicly abuse and who create a culture of abuse, you create even more dangerous outliers.

      On one side are the people who sickened by the abuses of the TSA quit and seek work elsewhere, the other side are people who egoistically revel in the abuses they can met out against any they feel might have slighted them in the past, how ever tenuous the association with the slight.

      These disturbed people will be denied their chance for psychopathic revenge, they will be further frustrated in the sadistic need to ease their rage and by nature of birth will act out on in. How destructively only remains to be seen.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  4. I look at it this way... by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Funny

    By opting out from the stupid Nudeo Scan 5000s I get two great benefits. First I get free bag service through security and second I get a free bump/wart/growth check on a weekly basis. All of this courtesy of the TSA. Besides I keep an otherwise un-employable person employed and I keep the latex glove industry in business.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:I look at it this way... by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      By opting out from the stupid Nudeo Scan 5000s I get two great benefits.

      You forget the 3rd bonus benefit:
      Waiting for an available TSA screener and wondering if anyone is going to abscond with your out-of-the-bag laptop on the other side.

    2. Re:I look at it this way... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      By opting out from the stupid Nudeo Scan 5000s I get two great benefits. First I get free bag service through security and second I get a free bump/wart/growth check on a weekly basis. All of this courtesy of the TSA. Besides I keep an otherwise un-employable person employed and I keep the latex glove industry in business.

      How about if they start doing colonoscopies? It's one of the most underused cancer screening tools in our toolbox (for fairly obvious reasons), but then you could improve YOUR health and the safety of the country. After the procedure, you'd be so groggy you wouldn't care about the lousy service on the plane or the lack of food.

      Full of win!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:I look at it this way... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Cripes! that would be great! Then I could cancel my health insurance too!

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re:I look at it this way... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      That's why I keep my wallet on me when I go through that. Even though I try to keep an eye on things there's always a chance but as soon as I walk past the scanner I try to locate my stuff and then have my man servant (TSA agent) handle the bags. It's not perfect. I then get to watch as the frustrated TSA agent then has to take my wallet and walk it over to the xray machine, put it in a little tray, watch it go through, then pick it up and bring it back to me.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:I look at it this way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Side benefit: The cost wouldn't be counted towards the health care sector anymore! Brilliant!

    6. Re:I look at it this way... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now that's a shitty idea. I'm not even talking about some idiot with the fine motor skills of the average autist handing a delicate area of my body, I dread how they'd clean the equipment. I mean, have you taken a look at the average TSA goon lately? Now think that the average person cleans himself usually better than his tools and reconsider!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:I look at it this way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just wait. The TSA will form the basis for "ObamaCare". I have it on good authority that open-backed paper hospital gowns & paper slippers, full cavity searches, and remote controlled "shock collars" with become the norm rather than the exception, in the not-too-distant future.

      The USA is a single Executive Order away from operational FEMA "re-education camps", natural gas fired crematoriums and all. If you don't love Big Brother, you will wind up on one of their "naughty lists".

    8. Re:I look at it this way... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Pity those things aren't built like MRIs. The hours of fun we could have with magnets like those...

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  5. There is some value in theater by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing that annoys me about the anti-security theater rant, is that in fact there is a non-zero value even to security theater.

    Yes you CAN get past screen checkpoints as we have them. But it does not mean we should give them up totally. Even just a veneer of security can be enough to dissuade a lot of people from trying something, or to make them nervous enough they screw up. It's enough of a deterrent that a lot of people simply will not try who might be convinced otherwise, because signing up to die in a glorious explosion is one thing but being set up to rot in jail is quite another and without honor.

    That said, the TSA as-is has gone way, way too far. We should have an immediate jump back to pre-9/11 security screenings, meaning we all get to keep shoes, bring water, and walk only through metal detectors, not the stupid body scanners that mean you cannot even keep a kleenex in your pocket but you can strap a gun to the side of your body.

    I do not care about the remote chance of a plane being blown up in the air, and there is no way hijacking a plane will succeed any more. Sure they could blow up a plane over a city but that's not going to take out a building as they would like to do. So let us have some dignity and easier passage on to our plane again. Heck, let loved ones meet you at the gate instead of shutting down the airport if one guy gets through the line with an unregistered kleenex by accident.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:There is some value in theater by Zorque · · Score: 1

      I agree, studies have shown people will commit far less crime if they feel they're being watched in some way (including by unobtrusive methods such as billboards with pictures of eyes on them). Security theater isn't entirely worthless and there are ways of doing it without invading people's privacy.

    2. Re:There is some value in theater by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The thing that annoys me about the anti-security theater rant, is that in fact there is a non-zero value even to security theater.

      If people are aware that it's security theater, I doubt it would make much of a difference.

      It's enough of a deterrent that a lot of people simply will not try who might be convinced otherwise

      I have no idea how anyone could possibly know that a "lot" of people were deterred by the security theater.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:There is some value in theater by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, there's non-zero value to having some visible security. I would argue that the security checkpoints aren't useful at providing visible security, though; the screeners are not even armed. They're about as relevant to security as the bag checkers on your way out of Fry's. If someone gets caught, they can simply run away, and there's probably a pretty good chance they'd make it to a car waiting for them curbside.

      Want to make people honestly feel safer? Station armed national guard or actual police at every checkpoint like they did right after 9/11. Then ditch the body scanners in lieu of either metal detectors or nothing at all, and perform a cursory X-ray of people's bags. Train the national guard troops to make eye contact with every passenger. That would be about a thousand times more effective at making people feel safer and a billion times more effective at scaring the bejeezus out of would-be attackers than what they're doing now, all while being a lot less invasive for legitimate travelers.

      --

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

    4. Re:There is some value in theater by tirerim · · Score: 0

      Less invasive, yes. Personally, though, I'm pretty uncomfortable around people with guns, since they tend to want to use them. I don't want to get shot just because some nervous private thinks I look "suspicious".

    5. Re:There is some value in theater by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

      We should have an immediate jump back to pre-9/11 security screenings, meaning we all get to keep shoes, bring water, and walk only through metal detectors, not the stupid body scanners that mean you cannot even keep a kleenex in your pocket but you can strap a gun to the side of your body.

      I do not care about the remote chance of a plane being blown up in the air, and there is no way hijacking a plane will succeed any more

      Didn't we say in the pre-9/11 days that you couldn't hijack a plane? Or do we go back to pre-9/11 security screenings until $DISASTER takes place? Kinda like how parent's tell their kids, "If you behave for 5 hours you can have your TV privileges back" I can see it now, "If you don't blow up a plane for 5years, we'll take away the metal detectors and body scanners."

    6. Re:There is some value in theater by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Also, security theater may be useful to a limited degree, but security theater that makes people feel violated is unacceptable. If you're going to cross those sorts of lines as the TSA does every day, there had damn well be a damn good reason, and the public has a right to know in detail what that reason is. That means we expect:

      • a regularly updated list of terror plots successfully foiled or scared off by this invasion of our privacy,
      • a detailed accounting of who benefits financially from the purchase of new security equipment, along with a complete breakdown of any financial or interpersonal relationships between them or their lobbyists and the people who made the purchasing decisions (including any and all stock held by anyone involved in the decisions), and
      • a regularly scheduled and televised review board meeting in which the public can present their grievances and obtain vengeance^Wjustice^Wredress.

      Anything less than all of the above is a gross abrogation of the government's responsibility to protect the public good.

      --

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

    7. Re:There is some value in theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Reassign the miliotary forces that are out of the country fighting right now to the airports etc would have been far more cost effective.

    8. Re:There is some value in theater by mrbester · · Score: 2

      Welcome to Brighton when the Labour Party holds their annual conference. Armed police walking around a large part of what is probably the most liberal and laid back city in UK doesn't make any tourist or resident feel safer.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    9. Re:There is some value in theater by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Rubber bullets, tasers, whatever. They don't necessarily have to be lethally armed.

      --

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

    10. Re:There is some value in theater by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. Those were kids. They were bored. If their firearms were loaded, they were more dangerous to everyone than the putative terrorists. If you want to scare people, use the Israeli method. Guys in civilian clothes and Uzis that have clearly been used and who are wandering around with pained, hostile looks. That and the jeeps with recoiless rifles that greet you on the tarmac. Nothing says security like a jeep full of soldiers and a big ol gun.

      No halfway measures.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:There is some value in theater by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      The thing that annoys me about the anti-security theater rant, is that in fact there is a non-zero value even to security theater.

      But is it worth the time and the money and the safety risk of standing in line next to a garbage can full of explosives?
      Most people lock their front door, although that does pretty much nothing to stop a real thief. But the risk and inconvenience is low compared to the reward. The TSA security is expensive in both time and money. And there is actual risk involved in going through the checkpoint. But the risk that is exposed if TSA doesn't exist is actually fairly low.
      You don't go through security when you hop on a train or a bus. Nor when you go to the mall. I went to a basketball game last week and had my bag checked, mainly cause they wanted to make sure I didn't bring in a nice cheap bottle of water.
      But I don't see anyone claiming they want security theatre for these things. Because the risk is NOT high enough. It isn't for a plane flight either.

    12. Re:There is some value in theater by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Didn't we say in the pre-9/11 days that you couldn't hijack a plane?

      To my knowledge, nobody said that you couldn't hijack a plane before 9/11. It was always possible, and still is. The assumption was that if a hijacker came on board with a knife, the people would pummel him/her, whereas a gun was considerably more lethal. Thus, they protected against the latter and not the former. What they didn't count on was thirty years of complacency brought about by a lack of incidents.

      Or do we go back to pre-9/11 security screenings until $DISASTER takes place?

      No, we go back to pre-9/11 security screenings, period, even after disasters take place. When you can prove that a newer screening technology significantly improves security without fundamentally invading the privacy of the people being screened, we'll consider it. Short of such proof, we must assume that the new systems aren't actually making us safer, which means that A. we should not be spending millions of dollars every year on them, and B. we should not be subjected to the invasion of privacy that they cause.

      --

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

    13. Re:There is some value in theater by devitto · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, you are wrong - Theatre is BY DEFINITION harmful - it is NOT like security-through-obscurity, or deterrents.

      Theatre is where the objective is to deceive - to make people believe they are secure, when they are not.

      That means you can't reasonably make judgement calls, or drive appropraite changes.

    14. Re:There is some value in theater by devitto · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, you are wrong - Theatre is BY DEFINITION harmful - it is NOT like security-through-obscurity, or deterrents.

      Cameras are deterants, and reduce unwelcome behavior - fact.
      Theatre is like changing the graphs to indicate 'crime is reducing' - it prevents people from making correct decisions.

    15. Re:There is some value in theater by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      A very good point. So the question is, "How much theater are we buying for the price of letting people recruited through pizza box ads touch our genitals?"

    16. Re:There is some value in theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The assumption was that if a hijacker came on board with a knife, the people would pummel him/her, whereas a gun was considerably more lethal

      Completely incorrect. The assumption - hell, the mandate - was that if a hijacker came on board with a knife, the people would keep calm, remain in their seats, and hope they were getting a free holiday in a Caribbean island instead of a free holiday in Djbouti.

      No, we go back to pre-9/11 security screenings, period, even after disasters take place.

      Debatable. The direct threat of 9/11 - a bunch of dickheads with boxcutters - was permanently and near-instantly solved by way of reinforced cockpit doors. As for the scary imagined threats that get unconstitutional agencies the funding that plants crave, well - there are plenty of effective measures (oh hai, explosives-seeking dogs) that can be taken, that don't involve surrendering bottles of shampoo.

      But that's assuming that they don't hate us for our soft, manageable hair. They totally do. I mean, they generally live in arid desert areas with no humidity, as I understand it.

    17. Re:There is some value in theater by devitto · · Score: 1

      Though @cheekyjohnson makes good points, the fact is that Security Theatre is not a risk deterrant, like cameras or handguns.
      Deterrents are perfectly well understood and accepted risk reduction techniques.

      Security Theatre's aim is to mislead those at risk into believing security is better than it is - and to fool them into making poor judgement.

      A major risk after 9/11 was that people wouldn't want to fly, so extra security checks at that time were effective against terrorism, and reasonable deterrants.

      Now the Security Theatre measures taken are almost entirely ineffective, but portrayed as highly effective, leaving people at the same level of risk, but unable to judge the true level.

    18. Re:There is some value in theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd need to remodel airports for this, or deploy a lot more guards than they did after 9/11. My first reaction when I saw those guys right after 9/11 was something along the lines of: Now terrorists don't need to bring a gun through security, they can just shank a guard and steal theirs.

    19. Re:There is some value in theater by devitto · · Score: 1

      I went to bton.ac.uk and now live in Bournemouth - home of the Conservative annual conference, so I know what you're talking about.

      However those armed cops are mostly to ensure that ram-raids of suicide bombers don't get through, and to make sure that armed cops are immediately to hand, if needed.

      Obviously, they didn't stop The Grand getting blown up with the Prime Minister and entire ruling party inside - but that's not why they are there.

      Anyways, it's always funny watching hot-hatches U-turn well before the checkpoints :-)

    20. Re:There is some value in theater by devitto · · Score: 1

      No - Security Theatre is always harmful, by definition. Deterrents, are a different kind of thing.

    21. Re:There is some value in theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The simple fact is the TSA's power is vastly over-reaching.

      Leaving out the lengthy argument about belief and idea based motivations, there are two types of terrorists: Domestic and International.

      With domestic terrorists, your potential list is every citizen in the country. That is the way a fairly open society works. It exists somewhere between totalitarianism, and anarchy. We're somewhere in the middle, where specific sectors of society that shift towards one of the other at any given time. With regard to the TSA, it's to the former, and rapidly. You could profile every citizen, but we have laws against that. You're dealing with the citizenry here, and allowing them to move freely about the country IS a right, despite whatever recent legal wrangling has been wrought out of fear. Stripping ones ability to travel down to the layer of skin under your clothing is a wholesale advertisement that, not only do we not know what we're doing, we don't expect you to know any better either. The level of absurdity for current TSA screening practices is not only criminal, is historically laughable.

      With International terrorists, we have a very real physical boundary. It's called the US border, and depending on how you look at it, you have several $100 Billion dollars expended annually on it to keep it safe. Simple fact is, if a foreign citizen(see non-US citizen) bypasses all the roadblocks we've put in place over the years with the intent to do harm on US soil (and with an airplane no less), against all those vasts sums of money going to Intelligence agencies, physical security, and military mobilization, then our Domestic Security Policy has failed in a manner that needs to be wholly burned and reborn.

      What's even worse is that domestic agencies goad potential suspects, an absurd concept in and of itself, into breaking purported 'Terrorism' Laws in order to drum up support that the threat is still on-going and in your backyard. It's not entrapment, if the Government tricks you into it but you never carry out the act, right?

      With regard to flight travel, no terrorist in their right mind would try and hijack a US airplane now. A green light has essentially been put in place for any air traveler to thwart a would be hi-jacking. Not only would it be thwarted by passengers, there would be cocktails served right after the hi-jacker was stomped into oblivion! And for other methods of disrupting flight, either by detonations or commandeering? You need only look to how secure your airport is for that answer. Here's a clue: IT'S SWISS CHEESE! The only thing I can say about International cargo container security and the US North and Southern borders, is this: SWISS CHEESE!

      The simple fact is, there are ways to do effective Airport and Airplane security. We presently, aren't doing them. The Government has provided the funds, but politics and back-room handshakes have insured they go to key people who intend on implementing policies that provide neither safety, nor security, but make certain Corporations rich (see Chertoff Group). And in some cases, likely harm those providing said security theater as well as those traveling. I'm looking at you, backscatter X-ray machines, uncertified by NIST, and AMA. It also doesn't help that the DHS has set the bar so low for potential employees, that even Felons aren't off the list as screeners. Remember though, that travelers are the problem. Not security personnel.

      It's been said, you deserve the Government elect. We don't deserve security theater and physical intrusion to the point of molestation while traveling. The only thing I can see we deserve out of this, is to be called out for allowing it to continue as long as it has!

    22. Re:There is some value in theater by Anyd · · Score: 1

      Don't taze me bro!

      But seriously... Given the police's current lack of discretion with tasers, pepper spray, etc., I don't think I want the TSA armed with them.

    23. Re:There is some value in theater by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      They're about as relevant to security as the bag checkers on your way out of Fry's. If someone gets caught, they can simply run away, and there's probably a pretty good chance they'd make it to a car waiting for them curbside.

      Are you suggesting that the potential terrorist wearing a bomb be shot in the back when attempting to run away?

      Hopefully, they'd wait for him to get in the car and far away from the crowds of people before they'd choke off his exit and potentially shoot him (or detonate him).

    24. Re:There is some value in theater by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That is the case if the criminals don't know that the measures are fully and utterly ineffective. An empty shell of a security cam, known by criminals to be an empty shell, doesn't stop a single criminal, but it might make the average honest person not knowing it less vigilant because he feels protected.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:There is some value in theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why blow up a plane when you can blow up tsa checkpoint?

    26. Re:There is some value in theater by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      "Doing TheRightThing(TM) when you think nobody is watching" is the best definition of morality I know. Religion hijacks this by convincing you god is always watching.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    27. Re:There is some value in theater by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I said the national guard, whose duty is to defend the constitution, not the TSA, whose duty is to usurp it.

      --

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

    28. Re:There is some value in theater by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Wearing a bomb, no. Carrying a gun, yes. Then again, a terrorist caught wearing a bomb is just going to set it off right there in the security line anyway, so it really doesn't matter what the security people do....

      --

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

    29. Re:There is some value in theater by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Prior to 9/11 hijackings were usually intended to divert the plan or hold hostages and people rarely died. Jetliners themselves had never been used as a weapon before. The simple and expedient solution to that vulnerability was simply installing secure cockpit doors and appropriate procedures about keeping it shut. Simple and cheap.

      I'm waiting for Homeland Security to start scaring us about other vulnerabilities and convincing congress to pour even more money their way. Stupid simple things like blowing up pipelines or poisening water supplies. Things that are dirt cheap to do, but our govt is willing to spend billions to prevent.

    30. Re:There is some value in theater by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      It was my custom to bring a flask of fine scotch with me on flights. The first time after 9-11 I forgot about the new rules about liquids so the TSA made me pour it out. I said I'll just drink it, if its explosive I'll probably not be feeling to well after I do so. I got a small ovation from the passengers waiting behind me, and flipped off the TSA agent. *Things went better than I excpeted*

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    31. Re:There is some value in theater by khallow · · Score: 1

      . I would argue that the security checkpoints aren't useful at providing visible security, though; the screeners are not even armed.

      What would be the point of arming security screeners? Police are always available to arrest and/or shoot people and it's all on camera, including the gunman's jump into the waiting vehicle.

    32. Re:There is some value in theater by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Prior to 9/11 hijackings were usually intended to divert the plan or hold hostages and people rarely died. Jetliners themselves had never been used as a weapon before. The simple and expedient solution to that vulnerability was simply installing secure cockpit doors and appropriate procedures about keeping it shut. Simple and cheap.

      I'm waiting for Homeland Security to start scaring us about other vulnerabilities and convincing congress to pour even more money their way. Stupid simple things like blowing up pipelines or poisening water supplies. Things that are dirt cheap to do, but our govt is willing to spend billions to prevent.

      I take it you are not familiar with VIPR? http://www.naturalnews.com/033961_TSA_security_checkpoints.html

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    33. Re:There is some value in theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was the study where they had a simple "honor" system - it was a coffee pot with money in a box in front of it, or something like that. They wanted to determine what influenced people's tendency to cheat the system. Having people watching worked. Hving people around and maybe watching worked. As a previous poster alluded to, having a photocopied page with a pair of eyes on it worked. Did the people in the study know it was actually unprotected, or do you think they were fooled into thinking they were actually being watched by the piece of paper with the eyes on it?

      I'm not sure if that addresses your doubt about people's reaction to the knowledge of security theater. But you might be surprised that some people actually study stuff like this, and not just kibitz about it on /.

    34. Re:There is some value in theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a more general sense, it bugs me that we have gotten so cowardly that we surrender our rights as citizens and people because of a small risk. What's the risk of death by aircraft bombing? One in how many billion? What's the risk of death by drunk driver? One in how many thousand? We're just wired to fear that which we feel we have so little control over. We need to rise above that fear, rise above that weakness and get on with it.

      In years past, young men lined up behind steel doors, waiting for those doors to drop and expose those same young men to a fusillade of flying copper and lead, a murderous hailstorm that those young men knew would kill most of them. All for the reason of trying to preserve liberty for their loved ones, their posterity, and the few survivors. Yet today, even while those survivors are still around, we throw up our hands and say "Oh no! Don't let the dark skinned people take a one in a hundred million shot at me! Please, take my liberty, take my freedom!" Don't we deserve better? Can't we respect the sacrifices of those who died for liberty better than surrendering it so cheaply?

    35. Re:There is some value in theater by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      But is it worth the time and the money and the safety risk of standing in line next to a garbage can full of explosives?

      I think you really agree with me.

      There is a huge bin where people throw liquids into in a constant stream. You could easily get several guys dumping three or four bottles of whatever in there without anyone noticing. You could already bring a giant backpack of C4 in any crowded security line. In fact flowing people through security much quicker would diminish the concentration of people that could be hurt by such an explosion, a far greater vulnerability than anything on a plane.

      The remaining security would be equivalent to "locking the door" and not make you linger as you have to now.

      But I don't see anyone claiming they want security theatre for these things.

      Sure they do, because real security is hard and annoying and expensive. People want just the "lock the door" security in general without the difficulty level and cost involved in real security. As I said, I am willing to trade off some aspects of "real" security today that are marginally effective (the body scanner can find things after all, even if they can also be fooled) for a greater degree of freedom (the freedom to keep a kleenex or wallet in my pocket).

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    36. Re:There is some value in theater by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, we've heard that idea forever.

      Which is just another great reason to make going through checkpoints faster so that people are not bunched up at them.

      I think I would be happy with just snipers armed with dart guns and real guns, and a profiler sitting in crows nests around the airport. The profiler could direct who to dart. The guns would be in case someone decided to storm the place. The snipers nests could be in view of two other snipers nest to prevent an unstoppable rogue sniper scenario. The rest of us could just get on the planes except for the guys they darted, who would each get a percentage of the profilers pay if they were mistakenly darted.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    37. Re:There is some value in theater by DaneM · · Score: 1

      The thing that annoys me about the anti-security theater rant, is that in fact there is a non-zero value even to security theater.

      Yes you CAN get past screen checkpoints as we have them. But it does not mean we should give them up totally. Even just a veneer of security can be enough to dissuade a lot of people from trying something, or to make them nervous enough they screw up.

      I call B.S. on this.

      1) Every time I have to deal with the inane TSA checkpoints, I amuse myself by thinking of the myriad ways in which a malicious person could still blow-up a plane without setting off any alarms. Of course, I'm not such a malicious person, but thinking about it is certainly more amusing than thinking of nothing.

      2) If a terrorist really wants to blow up a plane, ineffective security won't stop him unless he's stupid. For example: you're allowed 3 2-ounce containers of liquid. Such containers are typically not checked, so long as they're the right size and number. Therefore: container 1=nitric acid; container 2=glycerin; container 3=nothing important. Bathroom break, anyone? I'm sure an actual terrorist (with whatever training those organizations give) could pull off something like this.

      Even if that method wouldn't work, I'm sure there are plenty of other things that would. A determined terrorist could easily bring things aboard to cause problems. (A recent Slashdot article even outlined how to hide weapons from the nude-o-matic scanners...) Security theater might keep honest people honest, but those aren't the people you need to worry about!

    38. Re:There is some value in theater by berashith · · Score: 1

      unfortunately, the president and congresspeople who created this organization swore that pledge also.

      Otherwise I agree with you.

    39. Re:There is some value in theater by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      1) Every time I have to deal with the inane TSA checkpoints, I amuse myself by thinking of the myriad ways in which a malicious person could still blow-up a plane without setting off any alarms.

      Yes, obviously anyone of any intelligence does this. But there is a wide gulf between amusing yourself with the though and bringing 20 lbs of C4 to exploit what you think might be a weakness.

      If a terrorist really wants to blow up a plane, ineffective security won't stop him unless he's stupid.

      And what makes you presume most people that want to blow up a plane are not stupid?

      If all security measures do is stop stupid people from doing something I'm fine with that, as long as they are not too imposing on myself.

      Again, anyone can come up with a plan they think will work around security, but implementing it is vastly different matter given the consequences if caught.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    40. Re:There is some value in theater by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised at all about that. But there is literally no way to know just how many people were put off by it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    41. Re:There is some value in theater by chew8bitsperbyte · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but crimes can be broken into two categories: crimes of opportunity and crimes of intent. Security theater _may_ reduce crimes of opportunity, but if someone has the intent to 1) rob a bank, 2) blow up a plane, 3) murder someone, they will find a way. It becomes a game in which one side can play defense only while waiting for the offense to eventually score. Considering TSA was a direct response to 9/11 which was clearly a crime of intent, security theater _is_ worthless.

    42. Re:There is some value in theater by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      I take it you are not familiar with VIPR? http://www.naturalnews.com/033961_TSA_security_checkpoints.html

      I knew about the bus terminal bs. I wasn't aware of the huge funding expansion last Dec. Lets hope Congress at least looks at the legal issues, as well as the notion of spending millions to harass people getting on a greyhound or illegally searching vehicles at highway rest stops. Gestapo indeed.

    43. Re:There is some value in theater by IICV · · Score: 1

      The assumption was that if a hijacker came on board with a knife, the people would pummel him/her, whereas a gun was considerably more lethal. Thus, they protected against the latter and not the former. What they didn't count on was thirty years of complacency brought about by a lack of incidents.

      No, that's not the assumption; the assumption was the the hijackers would take the plane to some other country, and hold the passengers hostage until some demands were met. The possibility that the airplane hijackers would kill themselves flying the airplanes into something was generally not considered, presumably because that was not something hijackers had done historically. Just look through Wikipedia's list of airplane hijackings - the majority of them end without hostage casualties if the hostages cooperate, but result in casualties when there's resistance.

      Thus, before Sept 11th, the assumption was that if hijackers came on board with knives, they would demand to be flown to Cuba or something, but wouldn't otherwise harm the hostages. That's why nobody got pummeled on Sept 11th; it wasn't a reasonable course of action, since cooperation leads to better results than resistance.

      After Sept 11th, the passengers probably would pummel the hijackers; in fact, we can be pretty certain that's the case, because the fourth airplane that was hijacked on Sept 11th crashed after the hostages found out that these were suicide hijackers and tried to re-take control of the plane.

    44. Re:There is some value in theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that annoys me about the anti-security theater rant, is that in fact there is a non-zero value even to security theater.

      There is a negative value if what the security theater replaced worked better. Many people argue that it is now easier to smuggle things on planes. Formerly, you got real random checks and people using their judgement. There was a chance someone wanting to do bad was stopped, and there was a chance they would be discovered. Now you have rigid policies with holes any idiot can exploit, and nobody closing the holes because catching people doing bad things on planes is not the point.

    45. Re:There is some value in theater by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Didn't we say in the pre-9/11 days that you couldn't hijack a plane?

      To my knowledge, nobody said that you couldn't hijack a plane before 9/11. It was always possible, and still is. The assumption was that if a hijacker came on board with a knife, the people would pummel him/her, whereas a gun was considerably more lethal. Thus, they protected against the latter and not the former. What they didn't count on was thirty years of complacency brought about by a lack of incidents.

      Actually, back before 9/11 the assumption was that when a hijacker came on board with a knife the passengers would sit still and await for the authorities to negotiate their release.

      Only after 9/11 did it become the reaction of passengers to fight back.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  6. According to the committee's web page ... by jimhill · · Score: 1

    Schneier will _not_ be testifying. Sorry, nerdlingers.

    --
    Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
    1. Re:According to the committee's web page ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess someone on the committee discovered that Schneier is completely opposed to the TSA in its current and probably future forms...

  7. My experience by pseudofrog · · Score: 5, Funny

    TSA agents harassed, beat, and murdered me. I would have to rate my experince as "less than satisfactory."

    1. Re:My experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But did they give you the complimentary reach around beforehand?

    2. Re:My experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *twitch* So want to mod informative...

    3. Re:My experience by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      I'd have to give Facebook some pretty big props for giving you access despite being dead. Amazing what you can accomplish with php and a bit of elbow grease.

    4. Re:My experience by Greystripe · · Score: 2

      Duh he can't tell you that, he's dead remember?

    5. Re:My experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When Obama gets in to office he's sure to begin undoing the oppressive and intrusive shit from the Bush era.

    6. Re:My experience by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      You have to be brain dead to use it, so why not people who are a step further along?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:My experience by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, the fact is, the other party did start it. That Obama didn't fix it doesn't make them a damn bit better.

    8. Re:My experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you're dead.. doesn't mean you can't vote!

  8. And the hearings will be in a camp in Alaska? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    A special camp, for political re education. And a little gold mining. By hand.

    1. Re:And the hearings will be in a camp in Alaska? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw that show on the history channel

  9. stories wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We want your stories of the TSA. We won't actually do anything, but we want a good laugh. Now strip naked and get on the probulator, plebs.

  10. Do you really expect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Intelligent thoughtful questions that illuminate the issues from the House in this polarized election cycle. I watch Cspan and so see hearings without any media distortion and am disgusted at the posturing and speachifying and browbeating of witnesses that goes on under the guise of hearings (both "sides"). How we expect competent people to serve in any administration only to be abused in the way they are escapes me.

  11. TSA comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they suck camel dick.what else do they need to know? get rid of them and spend the money on something worthwhile, like children's books or a cure for cancer...

    1. Re:TSA comment by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Oh, that'll happen..

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  12. Here's my story by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've flown once since 9/11. Helped a friend move across the country then flew home. While I didn't exactly jet all over the world before the TSA was created, I've gone from flying every couple of years to flying once per decade and the main reason for that decline in flying has been the bullshit security theater of the TSA. Take my shoes off and put them in a tray? What the hell for? You can't run a sniffer over them while they're on my feet? When presented with absurdity, I'm wired to decline to participate and the TSA has provided plenty of absurdity. Doesn't mean I'll never fly again but I'll need a good reason.

    1. Re:Here's my story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll fly again when I have my own plane. Anyone with access to $20k and $300/mo can afford to do so. Instead of buying new cars, drive the craigslist specials. Hondas can go for one million miles if taken care of. Planes go that far too. Maintenance is key.

    2. Re:Here's my story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell kind of idiotic rant was that? Who the fuck cares about your life story, which has absolutely nothing to do with submitting to congress factual information about the TSA- good, bad, or indifferent? They're looking for input, not a bunch of trivial shit hardly worthy of being featured in a goddamned tweet. You've flown only once in over a decade, have some kind of notion that it's theater but can't be bothered to mentioned specifics, and your one big complaint is having to take off your shoes? Bravo, Citizen! Such a service to your country is truly worthy of a Congressional Gold Medal! Could you fly in to D.C. next week for the ceremony?

      Every motherfucker who thinks he's god's gift to mankind has to pipe up with the most inane bullshit he can string into a barely-coherent post. And people are surprised that politicians don't listen to the public. I'm not- there are so many of these numbskulls running around- even on supposedly "smart forums". Who can be bothered to sift through this daddy-issue crap? I guess the four idiots who saw the word 'theater' and automatically modded up that nonsense.

    3. Re:Here's my story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't defend the TSA, however, they are but one of MANY absurdities in the overall flying experience.. and to me at least, although they are up in the charts, they are not the number one I am most annoyed by.. Still I don't let it keep me from flying if I want to go somewhere.

  13. As a side note... by idbeholda · · Score: 1

    They could potentially save a lot of ink on the printouts if they just change the title to "TSA: Effective Security Theater".

  14. My Security Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Schneier was interviewed on 60 minutes a while back regarding this very issue. I love watching this guy talk about anything security related! Anyway here's the video segment for it:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5205160n

    - stoops

  15. neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a former Marine (former, not ex-, it's important in this case) who's received a bunch of neat, shiny pieces of metal and string. I'm also not allowed to fly in the United States because I've refused to walk through the scanners and I refused an enhanced pat-down. I also don't have a facebook account. So fuck me. I wish I'd never fought for this company. I'd originally meant to type country, but company seems a better description, to me. Idle, retarded musings, back to work.

    1. Re:neat by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear, soldier.

  16. Biowarfare with Athlete's Foot Fungus by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Forcing millions and millions of people to walk barefoot over the same carpet year after year promotes super-accelerated evolution of athlete's foot fungus and has helped spread it throughout the world. TSA is therefore aiding and abetting bio-terrorism, and should be immediately shut down as specified by Patriot Acts 1 and 2.

    1. Re:Biowarfare with Athlete's Foot Fungus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and millions and millions of people using mouthwash every day promotes super-accelerated evolution of cavity causing bacteria. What's your point?

    2. Re:Biowarfare with Athlete's Foot Fungus by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      The point, not present in the mouthwash example, is that the carpet contains samples from millions of different strains of the same species. They will combine and recombine their genes, and those that are most virulent will survive longer and spread more widely. It's the massively shared sample collection and distribution device (the carpet) that's the problem.

  17. Scanned and THEN felt up by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

    Here's my story. I went through the TOTALLY-HEALTHY scanner that has no negative effects whatsoever, then was still felt up. Thankfully it was only above the belt. It was enough to turn me off flying except when that was the only viable option, which I have actively worked to avoid.

    1. Re:Scanned and THEN felt up by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

      Thankfully it was only above the belt.

      So you're OK with the whole jiggle my moobs thing? No, I gotcha. It's cool. Whatever. Maybe I should ask for some next time.

    2. Re:Scanned and THEN felt up by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Oh I was furious, I just didn't want to compare my situation to travelers who have had agents handle their genitals.

  18. If they keep TSA by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Then Congress has to rename it Clown Security Theater and make the agents wear red plastic noses.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  19. My experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've flown a fair amount since 9/11. It's a literal pain in my ass. The last time I flew, I declined the body scanner. Why? I honestly don't believe they've been tested well enough, and I'm not about to put my health at risk. This means, of course, that they scream "OPT OUT! OPT OUT!" in an attempt to embarrass you, and then they have to feel you up. Now, when I say feel you up, I fucking mean it! This hairless weirdo was trying to talk to me, clearly enjoying himself, as he's "checking" for weapons. He quite literally was shoving his thumb into my asshole. It was, to say the least, unpleasant. To be perfectly honest, I wanted to give him a quick knee to the face out of sheer reflex. It was fucked up. It was a violation of my rights. It was illegal.

  20. High comedy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Security theatre debated via democratic theatre. Like LOLZERZ Scoob, what will these jokers think of next?

  21. Just how hi-res is Natalie Portman's nude scan? by McGruber · · Score: 1

    and do the nude-o-scopes detect hot grits poured down ones pants?

    (Reminder: Congress wants to know what you really want to ask TSA.)

  22. Okay by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Dear Penthouse,

  23. Only through facebook? by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    I have no problem with having the question I send to the government tied to my real name, but I refuse to let facebook be treated as an integral part of the conversation. This is not how democracy is supposed to work.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  24. You know, one thing I like about TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you get flagged for whatever reason to have to go through the little thing that shoots air at you, you bypass the metal detector lines.

  25. Dramatic stories by rbowen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The focus on dramatic stories is misplaced. The simple loss of dignity in traveling should be sufficient. I'm tired of being assumed to be a criminal when I travel.

    --
    Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
    1. Re:Dramatic stories by Butterwaffle+Biff · · Score: 1

      The simple fact that the government does not have the right to unreasonable search and seizure should be more than sufficient. In fact, it is a farce that the Bill of Rights even exists; assigning short names (e.g., "unreasonable search and seizure") to a list of things the government may not do is like telling a 2-year old not to smoke a crack pipe. There was significant debate over whether the Bill of Rights should ever have existed back when the constitution was drafted and I agree more and more with Hamilton's position on this every day.

  26. Best way to stop airplane hijacking . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . .stop air travel. In the midst of an energy crisis we need to find better alternatives anyways.

    Seriously, no matter what items you prevent people from bringing onto a plane, you can't prevent someone from bringing their bodies and minds, which alone are more than capable of hijacking planes.

    So unless you've got Walker Texas Ranger & Patrick Jane on ever plane to stop martial & bullshit artists from hijacking planes, you can't stop it.

  27. no Bruce Schneier after all? by fish+waffle · · Score: 1
    from TFA:

    Mr. Schneier will not testify at Monday's hearing (UPDATE: 3/23/12)

  28. Theatrics by blueforce · · Score: 1

    "Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Effective Committee or Political Theatre?"

    FTFY

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  29. Careful by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Wow, US tourism is absolutely booming!

    Careful - the statistics you show are ALL visits to the US not just visits for tourism. For example Canada counts as 21 million and I'm sure most of those visits were to buy things south of the border not for "real" tourism, not to mention the large number of business trips. I must say I do find the statistics surprising though but I note that some places like the UK and Japan show a marked drop in numbers of visits so if the OP cames from somewhere like there that may be the reason for his impression in a drop in US tourism.

  30. elephant in the room by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    excuse me, but let me see if I understand.

    the US creates this thing called TSA, entirely without people's support.

    they now want us to believe that they *care* what we think?

    this facespook stuff is neither here nor there. the fact is, government created this and it could banish it tomorrow if it wanted.

    it does not want.

    you all are being toyed with. discussin FB this or FB that. what a shame that we are so easily distracted.

    our wishes do not matter. facespook or not.

    don't waste your time. you'll get what they say you'll get. period.

    new era, but still very old rules.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:elephant in the room by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Literally an "elephant". The FB group is entitled "Oversight and Government Reform Republicans". I'm sure those folks are really dedicated to eliminating TSA, double pinky swear.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  31. The point you're missing is by shiftless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody cares about "communicating with the Congressman." If we wanted to do that, we could easily write one any day of the week and send it in, only to get a form letter back (if you're lucky) explaining why you're wrong and how your letter doesn't affect shit, but thanks for wasting everyone's time anyway.

    The real complaint some people are making here is that a supposedly "public" discussion is taking place in a closed off, walled off private community. So if the guy wants to air his voice in this "public forum", he effectively can't do so without having to agree to 3rd party terms and conditions. This isn't how a democracy is supposed to work.

    1. Re:The point you're missing is by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The real complaint some people are making here is that a supposedly "public" discussion is taking place in a closed off, walled off private community.

      That's not true. The disussion is taking place at the hearing. Facebook is being used as ONE METHOD of sending questions that you want asked to your congressman. That's what the fine article says: congressmen will accept questions via facebook. Not "congressmen will discuss the issue with their constituents only via facebook".

  32. Why not use dogs? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    The state rationale for using the body scanners and pat downs is to detect explosives. So why not have sniffer dogs in and around the checkpoints checking for explosives? Keep the bag x-ray and metal detector but ditch the body scanner and the pat-downs.

    They already have dogs for detecting drugs so why not for detecting explosives?

    Any bomb big enough to actually do any damage will be picked up by the dogs.

    1. Re:Why not use dogs? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Bara the bomb sniffing dog:
      http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210580/bombsniffingbara.htm
      I've also heard of two drug sniffing beagles at an Australian airport called "smack" and "horse" :)

    2. Re:Why not use dogs? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Because dogs scare people, and the real purpose of the TSA is to make people feel safe about flying. It was a way to prop up the airline industry when people were scared away.

  33. to congress by nimbius · · Score: 1

    as you choose to grace us with your presence, to look down from on high to the serfs and peons below and inquire, "tell us of your follies at the hand of our laws," we are humbled to oblige you with hillarious tales of our misery, suffering and strife. as minstrels to your beckon call we perform, knowing full well you shant ever lift a finger to improve our jolly hardships at the hands of the TSA.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  34. Bit late, not half enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No facebook account. Also not an American Citizen[tm], nor resident there, so I'm sure Congress[tm] wouldn't be interested in any case. The TSA and similar measures is obviously free of security-improving merit whatsoever and a direct reason I've simply struck all of North America off my acceptable destinations list. I have a few contacts yon, but simply will not go there, not before the security circus recedes sufficiently. This will not happen in our lifetimes, so I won't willingly visit again. Always possible I'll get extraordinarily rendered or something, of course, but then I wouldn't have had to say a thing about it in the first place.

    Also: I want a passport back that doesn't have RFID or requires fingerprints. Outside the USA you actually need your papers, so it behooves us not to make them unsafe to carry, or make them an adversary to keeping your own identity.

  35. Win a place on the no-fly list by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    First prize for the best story is an all-expenses-paid trip to a beautiful holiday resort in Cuba.

  36. That argument makes no sense, no harm by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Theatre is BY DEFINITION harmful

    I can't see how that makes any sense.

    You could perhaps argue it has zero value, but I explained why I think that is wrong.

    But to claim it is actually harmful is simply wrong, when in fact security theater always provides some degree of psychological deterrence.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  37. No, works either way by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    That is the case if the criminals don't know that the measures are fully and utterly ineffective.

    That is not true.

    Theater is about a play to the mind. Even if there are ways around that, like say the gun strapped to the side thing - you never know if perhaps THIS time they catch you ant an angle, or if that "weakness" is misinformational bullshit, or whatever. All you see is the large array of people before you trying to catch you at what you are doing.

    Security theater is a deterrent because it exploits the mind, which you really cannot overcome without difficulty. The simple fact that it can deter a number of people who do not have the mental fortitude to overcome it already reduces the pool of people that can cause harm on an airplane.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:No, works either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... because people ready to hijack a plane and commit suicide by running it into a building are so frightened of being caught! I do not believe people determined to cause harm (which isn't me) are going to simply drop it because of your theater.

      I don't care if they are: I don't want invasive 'security' like the TSA, and I don't want security theater.

  38. Gutsy but dangerous... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I said I'll just drink it, if its explosive I'll probably not be feeling to well after I do so.

    I admire the action, but I have to say that chugging a whole flask of scotch could easily lead to some puking on the spot, given your previous statement that would almost have been an admission that what you were drinking was not scotch!

    Still, well done...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  39. "Oversight and Government Reform Republicans" by funkboy · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like a hearing to gather ammunition to use against the Obama administration during the upcoming election campaigning...

    1. Re:"Oversight and Government Reform Republicans" by Nimey · · Score: 1

      This is what I came here to post.

      Given the GOP's predilections to strength, security, &c, /and/ that the abomination known as TSA (and Fatherland Security) is their baby, I don't imagine they'll take objections seriously anyway.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  40. At least that would follow standards. by Kludge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Telnet (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt) and RPC (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1831.txt) are standard protocols that anyone can implement. "Facebook" is not. "Facebook" is a closed propriety system completely controlled by a single individual who can for any reason eliminate anyone's account or use their data for any purpose that suits him.

  41. Bruce Schneier crossed off by ratpick · · Score: 1

    Bruce Schneier is crossed off the list of witnesses scheduled to testify...

  42. Here's a story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once upon a time...

    Get rid of the TSA.

    And they all lived happily ever after.

  43. whitehouse petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://wh.gov/RM7

    "End government mandated manual genitalia exams and naked photography at United States airports."

  44. The big question ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... What is Congress willing to do?

    Congress has asked for citizen's opinions before and tossed a consensus vote into the 'do nothing' basket. Considering the cronyism that is reported around those airport scanners it is doubtful congress will stop the pork barreling. Plus sacking all those TSA employees may save money but will also result in the opposition party shouting 'job losses' from the hilltop. (The republican party also shouts 'small government'.)

  45. Security Theater TSA hearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently Bruce Schneier will NOT be testifying at Monday's hearing. Pity.

  46. reform theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are large groups of people in the government who should be chiming in on this who will not be doing so because they're collecting info via facebook. It's not that we don't use facebook, it's that they are required to keep their work and private lives as separate as possible.

    For example, let's say you have a security clearance. Why do you have to go through TSA security? Let's say you have a security clearance to work with explosives. Now, not only do you have to go through TSA, you'll get the full and complete search every time they search you with any competence, because you do have residue on you. Whenever I get pulled aside, I would love to skip to the end, where I get to talk to their explosives expert, who is a true professional. Instead, I get groped by a couple of guys for half an hour first. Truly, it's wonderful. The same thing happens to our special forces, why? Put a CAC reader at the airport ($10 at Frys), let me prove who I am, and let me through.

  47. My TSA Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My story is that I have not flown since the TSA was created and I will not fly until I can do so without having to take off my shoes or have my genitals groped or have nudie pictures taken of me.

    As a technology guy, I have said no to numerous business trips as a result of this, with little my employer can do about it other than ask why and accept it because it's a pretty understandable reason. I'm sure I'm not the only one with that policy. Whether or not the TSA and its idiotic practices have been a factor in the demise of several airlines since the TSA was established is anyone's guess, but too bad if it is. I'm still not flying until the TSA's current useless practices are gone.

  48. People who believe in PRIVACY won't have a FACEBOO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UNBELIEVABLE! People who believe in PRIVACY will not be on Facebook! They will get a very BIASED sample if they only look on Facebook for comments. I don't have a FACEBOOK.

    Please see http://shinybadge.com/ and support the STRIP ACT!

  49. Do they take photo submissions? by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

    I have a picture of 30 TSA agents standing around doing nothing in front of the x-ray machines

    Another way they get you. A lot of the foreign airlines don't make you remove your little 1quart toiletry bag, so you forget about it upon re-entry to the US, so they have "reason" to hand search you and your dirty underwear.

    --
    There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
  50. Body Scanners Dont Work, Cause Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guns getting past body scanners
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSS271wU_5c

    Scanners don't work
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V1OSt2Tpmw

    21 reasons scientists oppose body scanners
    http://warondriving.com/post/9114691887/tsa-bodyscanners

  51. "Leftist" does not mean "Authoritarian" by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

    As opposed to the people on the right like the administration which implemented this TSA nonsense to begin with, and want to tell people who they can marry, what they can watch, or read, or say, and would really love to be able to tell people who they can fuck and what religion they're allowed to have?

    You're showing your obvious bias if you think totalitarianism is entirely a leftist thing. The right is just as bad if not worse these days. "Right" does not mean "libertarian" -- there are left-libertarians and right-libertarians both, and authoritarians on both sides too. (I'd say the American right is more polarized into extreme right-libertarian and extreme right-authoritarian groups, while the left is more unified into a pool of left-moderates).

    The difference is not even "economic" vs "social" freedom as the Nolan Chart puts it; the only historically enduring difference between "left" and "right" politics is populism vs elitism.

    Both of them have their authoritarian streaks which would force everybody to go along with their way, and their libertarian streaks who are concerned with fighting the other side's authoritarians. It's just a difference of whether they want everybody to go along with the majority, or everybody to go along with some minority.

    There are as big of differences between anarcho-socialists and Stalin or Mao as there are between anarcho-capitalists and Hitler or Mussolini, yet the former three are all "left" and the latter three are all "right".

    One-dimensional political analysis doesn't cut it at all. Even two-dimensional is barely acceptable.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:"Leftist" does not mean "Authoritarian" by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      "Leftist" does not mean "Authoritarian".

      Yes. Yes it does. Leftism/Liberalism/Progressivism cannot function without it. They must restrict/remove individual freedom and the ability to make free choices from the population in order for leftism to work (well, "work" for the relatively short time such regimes typically survive before they devolve into revolution & chaos). See my sig.

      Most of the rest of your post is hair-splitting, pontificating, and hand-waving.

      Leftist always means authoritarian/totalitarian. In every single case where leftists are or have been in full power/control of the government. Not every authoritarian/totalitarian regime is leftist, but every leftist regime is authoritarian/totalitarian.

      I'll take capitalism over anything else any day of the week and twice on Sundays. No other system has lifted more people from poverty or provided so many people such high standards of living. Capitalism has allowed more people to live in freedom than any other system ever invented. Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention thatâ(TM)s useful to someone else.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:"Leftist" does not mean "Authoritarian" by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Tell that to an anarcho-socialist. There may not be many of them around these days (at least not in this country), but they are definitely leftists and definitely anti-authoritarian.

      Also, you are aware that free markets were original a leftist idea, as opposed to the mercantilism and feudalism of the old old right? As you say, it was a tool that empowered the masses, and liberated them from the privileged authority of the aristocracy and those with the state's special mandate.

      The original left-right distinction was about the liberty of the people against the authority of the elites. Then that old old right was defeated and disappeared, but somehow there were still elites and commoners despite them all preaching the same old leftist free market mantra together, so many of the commoners decided that wasn't enough and that an authority of the masses was called for too. And then you got people on the right decrying that authority of the masses. And now the old old right is rising again, elitist authoritarians.

      Left-right is about populism vs elitism, nothing more and nothing less, and either side will advocate whatever ideology (libertarian or authoritarian) best favors their side in the present circumstances.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    3. Re:"Leftist" does not mean "Authoritarian" by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      ...leftist free market...

      See, right there is why we can't have a logical argument. Leftists and leftist ideologies, as practiced in the real world where leftists have control of a nation, have never been about free markets. Just the opposite, in fact. They want a government-controlled and run economy with the means of production and wealth-generation in the hands and/or under the control of government. I don't know where you got the idea that leftists were ever in favor of free markets, but it/they are wrong.

      Check out this explanation of the relationships between different systems. Analogy starts at ~2:25 into the video.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dVxHHDBsB

      Although he seems a bit hysterical about many things, I found this explanation/analogy interesting and informative. It seems to do a good job in communicating the concepts being discussed, regardless of the occasional hysteria in some of his other monologues I've seen.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:"Leftist" does not mean "Authoritarian" by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      You are just staunchly repeating your initial position in the face of argument to the contrary, without any counter-argument.

      You've evidently never heard of classical liberalism, which is essentially the same thing as contemporary right-libertarianism. "Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets." (Emphasis mine). It was originally propounded by the left, that is, by people opposed to the feudal ancien regime of the crown and the aristocracy.

      Certainly the contemporary (mainstream) left is not propounding that anymore, but your blindness to historical variation is precisely what I am trying to alleviate. The contemporary left advocates a degree of authoritarianism; so do many on the contemporary right, to an even greater degree; others on the contemporary right advocate a strongly libertarian position; but others on the left, and until about a century ago everybody on the left, advocated that same strongly libertarian position.

      (And I will be the first to complain that too few on the contemporary left have any respect for a libertarian approach; what I would most love to see in contemporary politics is an argument between strong left-libertarian and right-libertarian parties, figuring out how to best refine the principles of a liberal society, instead of the left-authoritarian and right-authoritarian debate we have now, with an insignificant right-libertarian sideshow and virtually non-existent left-libertarians).

      I am saying that it is a historical parochialism of yours to think that because the mainstream left is currently advocating an authoritarian platform, that leftism is inherently authoritarian. Or, more to my original point, I'm saying that your arguments against "leftism" are properly aimed at authoritarianism, which can be and has been shared by the left and the right both.

      Your video link is broken, BTW. "The URL contained a malformed video ID."

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    5. Re:"Leftist" does not mean "Authoritarian" by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Try this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dVxHHDBsBQ

      You've evidently never heard of classical liberalism, which is essentially the same thing as contemporary right-libertarianism. "Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets." (Emphasis mine). It was originally propounded by the left, that is, by people opposed to the feudal ancien regime of the crown and the aristocracy.

      Certainly the contemporary (mainstream) left is not propounding that anymore, but your blindness to historical variation is precisely what I am trying to alleviate.

      I'm telling you that I understand what "classical liberalism" is. After Progressivism failed and was largely discredited in the 1920s, Progressives changed their name to, and/or started calling themselves, "Liberal". In more recent times, after the term "Liberal" became associated in the public's mind as the large-government, high-tax, weak on defense, strong on removing/limiting rights, big-spenders that they've always been, they've started calling themselves "Progressives" again.

      Same failed ideology, just repeated changing of the curtains, so to speak.

      So, I understand the terms I'm using and the historical context. I also understand what historical details matter in the context of what I originally posted, and what has nothing to do with the points I made.

      Stop trying to distract and obfuscate. I'm sorry if it's uncomfortable to your worldview, but I have been correct in every point I've made in every post in this thread.

      I was not, nor was anyone else other than yourself, talking about classical liberalism. That just tells me you've run out of arguments.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:"Leftist" does not mean "Authoritarian" by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      You weren't talking about classical liberalism, but it's relevant because you were misdirecting your criticism.

      You wrote that "those with leftist political views [...] seem to want to be told what to do, how to live, how much money to make, and even what to think by government." And I will agree that some people on the left want some of those things, or at least, as you say, "keep voting for politicians who advocate for those things". And I agree that that is wrong.

      But there are plenty on the right who do the same, just about different subjects (different kinds of acts, speech, and thought curtailed), with the one possible (but arguable) difference of "how much money to make", which is all that anybody seems to really care about anymore.

      So I pointed out that the left and the right both resort to authoritarianism when it suits them. You then responded that the left necessarily resorts to authoritarianism. As a counter, I brought up classical liberalism, which is about as anti-authoritarian as you can get and was originally propounded by leftists.

      It's not any more, and that is sad. But the historical usage of the terms "left" and "right" does not tie them to the ideologies promoted by the people labelled thus today. Leftists do not necessarily advocate authoritarianism any more than rightists do. In contemporary American politics, both sides are dominated by authoritarians, and most of the libertarian minority are on the right. But that does not make libertarianism an inherently right position, or authoritarianism an inherently left one.

      TL;DR: Direct your criticism at authoritarians, and I'll be right there with you. But left-right politics is non-sequitur to the issue.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  52. american hostages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    between the TSA NSA and all the other alphabets i find it hard to consider myself a citizen anymore its more like being a hostage in an occupied country where you only have the right to be fondle and eavesdropped on with no limits aor bounds.
    http://www.squidoo.com/how-to-be-heard