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."

Comments

via Facebook only?

[AliasMarlowe]

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

Re:via Facebook only?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:via Facebook only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Githaron]

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

Re:via Facebook only?

[aoism]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[vux984]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Kenja]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[causality]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Vectronic]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[stephanruby]

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).

Re:via Facebook only?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Opportunist]

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

Re:via Facebook only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[vux984]

"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...

Re:via Facebook only?

[mspohr]

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?

Re:via Facebook only?

[icebraining]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[causality]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[vux984]

'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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[interval1066]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[sjames]

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

Re:via Facebook only?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:via Facebook only?

[DrLang21]

"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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[houstonbofh]

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

Re:via Facebook only?

[andymadigan]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Hognoxious]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Dr. Evil]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[tburkhol]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[realityimpaired]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[McGruber]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:via Facebook only?

[ae1294]

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

Congress????

Re:via Facebook only?

[John.Banister]

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

Bruce has been scrubbed from the hearing...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Questions

[Wowsers]

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.

Re:Questions

[Mitreya]

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?

Re:Questions

[Virtucon]

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!

 

Re:Questions

[artor3]

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?

Re:Questions

[nazsco]

happen to have a comparisson with global tourism size?

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

Re:Questions

[artor3]

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.

Re:Questions

[causality]

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.

Re:Questions

[fluffy99]

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

Re:Questions

[artor3]

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.

Re:Questions

[Virtucon]

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.

Re:Questions

[BlueStrat]

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

I look at it this way...

[Virtucon]

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.

There is some value in theater

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:There is some value in theater

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:There is some value in theater

[mrbester]

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.

Re:There is some value in theater

[chrismcb]

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.

Re:There is some value in theater

[dgatwood]

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.

Re:There is some value in theater

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:There is some value in theater

[TapeCutter]

"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.

Re:There is some value in theater

[interval1066]

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*

My experience

[pseudofrog]

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

Re:My experience

[Greystripe]

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

Re:My experience

[Opportunist]

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

Here's my story

[jtownatpunk.net]

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.

Biowarfare with Athlete's Foot Fungus

[Un pobre guey]

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.

Dramatic stories

[rbowen]

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.

The point you're missing is

[shiftless]

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.

At least that would follow standards.

[Kludge]

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.