Slashdot Mirror
Congress Capitulates To TSA; Refuses To Let Bruce Schneier Testify
McGruber writes "Following up on an earlier Slashdot story, earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing titled 'TSA Oversight Part III: Effective Security or Security Theater?' ... In a blog update, Bruce Schneier says that 'at the request of the TSA' he was removed from the witness list. Bruce also said 'it's pretty clear that the TSA is afraid of public testimony on the topic, and especially of being challenged in front of Congress. They want to control the story, and it's easier for them to do that if I'm not sitting next to them pointing out all the holes in their position. Unfortunately, the committee went along with them.'"
We would not want to threaten the profits of all those backscatter machine companies by pointing out how little TSA's airport security really accomplishes, now would we? What, you think that because Schneier is a prominent security researcher, he is supposed to be talking about the failures of security programs?
Palm trees and 8
Cherry picking speakers to support the status quo is just theater, nicely complementing the security theater of the TSA.
Same congress that prevented any women from testifying on women's health issues recently.
is on Twitter @DarrellIssa Anyone so inclined could tweet the link to Schneier's blog.
If there truly were a population of evil doers who both wished harm on the US and were really willing to work toward that goal, we would have bus stop bombings, etc. in this country. There are tons of unsecured stuff that could be attacked here very easily.
The fact that such does not occur is proof that such a population is largely non-existent and certainly nowhere near being worth all the BS with the Terrorism Industrial Complex.
Congress has been violating the "charter" AKA The Constitution for years. If you are just noticing this then you need to wake up, get a cup of coffee, read the constitution and find out what has really been going on.
However, there is no guarantee that you or anyone will get to testify before congress. There is a guarantee that you will be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
4th amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Can some one point to the airport exclusion? Or where congress amended the constitution to allow this?
...who also made himself available for testimoney before congress -- and was never called to testify -- after he blew the whistle on the NSA's installation of those Narus boxes at AT&T switches (throughout America, most probably and at IXPs or EPs, as well).
Same congress that prevented any women from testifying on women's health issues recently.
I believe you mean "one woman from testifying on religious freedom issues". The issue before congress was whether the mandate was a potential violation of the rights of religious institutions. It was not an evil panel of old men trying to put a baby in every woman's uterus.
Dictatorial government actions often start by "limiting voices", regardless of the country.
This is not a good omen for getting the best solutions for a critical issue.
The list of government witnesses in prior hearings were "officials" of various departments, meaning they are managers of employees.
Eliminating Bruce Schneier from the witness list means they really do NOT want any experts in front of the committee as that could bring up troubling "FACTS".
This is the same committee that wouldn't let any women testify in a hearing on contraception last month.
Apparently, if you know something about the topic at hand, they don't want your input.
That seems a little over-the-top. Sure it strips your clothes off your body, to display a naked gray image of your breasts and penis. Sure the guards have been caught asking particular gorgeous women to step through the machine multiple times. Sure some TSA agents have posted personal notes like "Get your freak on" in lady's luggage. Sure some of those images have been leaked by those same guards to the internet......
Never mind. I guess the description was apart afterall.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Since it is popular to post "Thanks to TSA, I now drive instead of flying", I will point out that the House and Senate are currently in a showdown that likely will result in a cutoff of federal highway funding.
Here is a CNN article about the situation: http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-21/politics/politics_congress-transportation-bill_1_committee-chairman-john-mica-highway-bill-senate-democrats
And a FoxNews article: http:/// www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/24/obama-urging-congress-to-end-transportation-standoff/
And a Politico article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74498.html
The purpose of this hearing is not to allow congress to learn hidden facts. It is to convince the public that congress is doing its job, and that its decision to continue funding the TSA and to continue allowing the TSA to perform warrantless invasive searches is the result of a well-scrutinized and carefully considered process.
Allowing Bruce to testify will not win hearts and minds.
4th amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Can some one point to the airport exclusion? Or where congress amended the constitution to allow this?
They simply changed the interpretation of "unreasonable". After all you may be a terrorist, citizen.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Which means we shouldn't be searched for airflights (or trains or cars) that travel internal to the U.S. and cross no borders. And yet they do it all the time.
I was caught in several of these while following I-8 from California to Texas. Most just waved me past, but one stop demanded to search my trunk. I refused. ("No warrant; no search." - ACLU of DC.) As punishment they made me stand in the hot sun for an hour & get a nasty burn. Bastards. The SA and Homeland cops think they can look anyplace they want.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
http://www.schneierfacts.com
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Doesn't give you the right to breathe, either.
It's almost like some rights are, what's the word? Oh yeah. Inalienable.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
No, but it *does* grant the right to travel. I live in Alaska. Granted, I live in Anchorage which is connected to the lower-48 by highways. However, my job provides services to a village called Bethel (and a couple dozen surrounding villages) which are only accessible by air (or dog team, *if* it's winter and you've got two weeks to get where you're going). Therefore, in effect, by denying access to the airlines without a search, you have essentially denied the right of travel without forfeiting your right to be free from searches to at least a quarter of the residents of the state.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
The last time I served jury duty, my job alone was enough to get me thrown off.
The case being considered was an automobile accident (with injuries), where the driver of the car was claiming that part of the steering/suspension had suddenly failed, causing his car to swerve out of control and hit the other car. There was planned to be a lot of expert testimony involving forensic engineers, metallurgists, etc. hired by the defense to back up the claim.
3 of us were thrown out by the prosecuting attorney during jury selection for having engineering or mechanical backgrounds. One machinist, one auto mechanic, and myself (electronics design). Apparently, if you know enough to possibly UNDERSTAND what the hired experts are trying to say, you have no place on the jury....
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
And this won't happen again because of two things:
1) Pre-911, a hijacking meant you sit down and stay quiet. The hijackers take over, fly the plane to Cuba (or some other location), make a big statement about some political cause and (after some political negotiations), everyone is set free. Inconvenient? Sure, but in general not life threatening if you sit down and be quiet. However, now if someone hijacks an airplane, everyone will assume they intend to kill everyone on-board. Thus, there is nothing to lose trying to violently overthrow the hijackers. Worst case scenario: Everyone still dies, but might derail the terrorists' plans. Best case scenario: The terrorists are foiled and some/all passengers survive.
2) The cockpit doors are sealed and reinforced so a terrorist can't get to the cockpit. So even if a terrorist takes over the passenger section *AND* if the passengers don't fight back, the pilots can land the plane to minimize the damage the terrorists can do.
Even without a single post-911 TSA "advancement", no terrorist will be able to replicate 9-11. (This isn't to say they can't kill more people, just that they can't repeat their previous performance.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Sigh... THIS IS NOT A LEFT VS. RIGHT THING! THIS IS A GOVERNMENT VS. THE PEOPLE THING!
As long as the populace wants to blame a Republican or a Democrat, we won't see any change. Both Democrats AND Republicans are to blame for the mockery the U.S. has become since 9/11. They are two sides of the same coin. No matter which side is face up when the coin hits the table, you and I lose. It's time to vote EVERYBODY out of office and start over!
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I get so tired of hearing this tripe.
9/11 didn't happen because TSA wasn't on duty yet. 9/11 happened because up until that point, the game went like this:
"Terrorist" hijacks an airplane
Everyone sits tight and does what they are told.
Airplane goes to Cuba (or wherever).
Everyone goes home a little shaken up, but unharmed after a nice vacation on a tropical island that very few Americans get to see any more.
That changed on 9/11, and we had already adjusted to the new playing field before the day was done. The new paradigm, and securing the cabin doors, were all that was necessary to ensure that there will NEVER be another 9/11. IMHO, if you really want to prevent another hijacking on an airliner, you'll scrap the TSA and just issue every passenger a Louisville Slugger when they board the airplane. The passengers have the greatest vested interest in the security; stop trying to disarm your greatest allies in the quest for secure airliners!
And even the argument I pose above begs the ultimate question in the so-called "War on Terror:" WTF were the 9/11 hijackers doing in the country in the first place?!?! If you *start* your security procedure in the airport, you've already screwed the pooch. IIRC, we had reason to believe at least some of the hijackers were bad actors long before they boarded the airplanes in 2001. They never should have been allowed to get to the airport to begin with.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Actually the American founders though of that problem, and solved it via the Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This passage is really genius and its a great pity that the kind of intellectual governance that drafted it no longer exists in the US today.
May the Maths Be with you!
Here's the committee, see any of yours on there? Send 'em an angrygram.
http://oversight.house.gov/committee-members/
specifically, ask them who they'll be inviting instead to provide counterpoint, if not Mr. Schneier.
Ask them how they can assume the TSA, which must provide a biased story to (1) avoid contradicting previous statements, (2) to protect their future budget and (3) to successfully defend the lawsuit for which Mr. Schneier was removed, can be considered an unbiased source of information. (Oh wait, they're federal employees, altruism must be taken for granted)
Hey, you're the one who entered the Constitution-free zone, what did you expect. The majority of Americans live in that zone, by some amazing coincidence.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And if the facts are on the "liberal" side?
If anybody honestly expected the U.S. government to bring in experts on any issue even slightly tied to the giant boondoggle that is the TSA, you must have been hiding under a rock for the past ten years.
In fact, I'll go one step further and say that the day Congress actually lets competent, intelligent technology experts into any discussion, we'll have solved global warming semipermanently by balancing the heat from the sun with the icy breeze coming up from hell.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
This is the first meaningful use of capslock I have ever seen on the internet. Good show.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
to be on record, YES, that counts.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
that won't fix things.
the system is broken.
if your computer is blowing a fuse, will replacing the fuse a 2nd and 3rd and 4th time in a row really do anything?
doing a chinese fire drill on the elected officials is not fixing the problem.
removing the money factor from office WILL fix the problem.
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
elections are not going to change a damned thing. they are like swapping fuses when the circuit is basically shorted out, downstream.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Are you suggesting that matters of religious freedoms should only allow input from religious people at the exclusion of all others? You don't have to agree with her but something is wrong when you argue for a 'nah nah I'm not listening' debate.
The meaning of the word "unreasonable" has become vague, at least in common use. From the oldest dictionary I could find (Oxford English Dictionary, first edition http://archive.org/stream/oedxaarch#page/n889/mode/2up), it is:
1: Not endowed with reason; irrational 2: Not acting in accordance with reason or good sense
IOW, Unreasonable means "without a reason." The government can not conduct a search without having a reason to do the search. This makes perfect sense: If an TV was stolen nearby and soon after an eyewitness says they saw you carrying a TV into your house, then the police have a reason to search your house: To see if the stolen TV is inside. On the other hand, if the TSA picks a person at random, then they don't have any reason to search him for bombs.
Bull.
The constitution grants rights to the goverment. The american system is built on a foundation of "deny all with specific exceptions" for the government and "permit all with specific exceptions" for the people.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Again we find somebody on slashdot egregiously misrepresenting the meaning of the Amendments. What that Amendment means is that the Constitution does not contain a comprehensive list of your rights. You may have other rights not listed here. Film at 11.
Which, coincidentally, is covered by the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's almost as if the founders anticipated this sort of thing...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Actually the American founders though of that problem, and solved it via the Ninth Amendment The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This passage is really genius and its a great pity that the kind of intellectual governance that drafted it no longer exists in the US today.
That passage was James Madison's forlorn hope. He argued strongly that a Bill of Rights was a bad idea, because it could never enumerate everything that mattered and anything that was left out would have second-class status at best, or even be called a non-right because obviously if it were a right it would have been included. Only when it became clear that the absence of a Bill of Rights was threatening the Constitution, because the anti-Federalists were arguing that a "strong" federal government (remember that "strong" in those days meant something that was still only the barest shadow of today's juggernaut) would trample the rights of the people, did Madison relent and begin working on what we now know as the Bill of Rights.
The 9th and 10th were his attempt to stave off the disaster he'd predicted. History has shown that he was not wrong in his prediction of government running roughshod over non-enumerated rights. However, there's also not much proof that he was right in his prediction that not enumerating any rights would have worked better. He and the other Federalists really placed their trust in the states and the ability of the people to keep their own state governments from trampling their rights, but that hope proved just as vain, which is why the 14th amendment was eventually required.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
You conservatives and your bridges to nowhere...
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Its official. The monkeys are running the zoo.
Have gnu, will travel.
That is absurd. It wasn't the US government that decided that people should build a village in an area so remote that it was impractical to build a road that would be passable in the winter. The people who live there decided that they wanted to live in a place that's inaccessible. You can't blame the government for that. (Well, you can blame them, but you can't expect such absurd blaming to go without response.)
Ummm...you do realize that most of the peoples on the west coast of Alaska have lived there for longer than there even has been a United States government, don't you?
Also, are you asserting that the small private planes that go in and out of remote villages in Alaska are subject to the same screenings as airliners going in and out of major airports? I have no personal experience with that IN ALASKA, but I have been in and out of small private airfields in other states and there was no security theatre whatsoever.
The degree of security depends upon the airport and the type of operation being conducted. If you are flying with a Part 135 (air taxi) operator out of smaller airports, no, there is not much security. However, even the Part 141 (scheduled air carriers, i.e., airlines) fly into some surprisingly small airports. For example, Iliamna is off the road system, and IIRC, it does have airport security. Again, as I stated with the Bethel example, there is essentially no way in or out of Iliamna except by airplane. Furthermore, maybe you haven't been keeping tabs, but TSA has tried twice (so far) to expand the scope of airport security to include smaller operators and smaller airplanes. So far, there has been enough public outcry to prevent this, but then again, I never expected that we would see the crap we currently see at the airports.
The only precautions were to ensure that the person taking the plane out was the plane's owner. You didn't have to show a pilot's license and nobody cared who might be along for a ride.
If you are talking about non-commercial services, then yes, you are correct. In some cases, there is even less security than you mention. I own an airplane based at Merrill Field here in Anchorage, and the only thing you need to get in my airplane and fly away is the key to remove the prop lock (and a good deal of luck -- the Rotax 503 powering it is a cranky, temperamental POS). However, the myth that everyone in Alaska owns an airplane and/or has access to a private airplane is exactly that -- a myth. One in ten people here are pilots, but a good number of them don't own airplanes. A good number of those that do, don't own airplanes that are currently airworthy; it's expensive to own an airplane (mine isn't, for example).
Furthermore, if you think a private plane is an acceptable substitute for an airliner, then you have absolutely no idea of the scale of Alaska nor the difficulty of crossing the state in a small airplane. Summers up here are often rainy with low overcast skies. Couple that with the majority of the state covered with some really freaking huge mountain ranges (you do know that nine of the sixteen highest peaks in North America are in Alaska, don't you?), and it's not a trivial matter to cross the state in a small airplane. Filing IFR often isn't a possibility because of icing, even in the summer. In the winter, things are even more difficult due to limited daylight hours and extreme temperatures (most Cessnas aren't designed to fly at -20F or less, even though it *can* be done).
So if Alaska is anything like the other states I've lived in, it's perfectly possible for people living in outlying villages to hitch a ride to town and from there
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
In a related story, the congress is holding hearings on the magnificence of the emperor's clothing, and are excluding outspoken children from testifying.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Then don't vote for either of the two parties. Vote for a whacko third party -- Libertarian, Green, Communist even. Just send the message that "business as usual" doesn't cut it anymore. Even the worst third party can't screw things up any worse than the R/D's have.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I agree with you.. but it isn't like we (American citizens) haven't been complicit. We have one party that is willing to say publicly that water boarding isn't torture. And on the other side, one that says Guantanamo Bay is wrong and should be closed, yet is unwilling to actually close it. And we have American citizens that either don't care, won't say anything, or at the very least won't vote these people out of office. There are no protests - not over Guantanamo, not over the TSA, not over much of anything.
When something goes wrong (say 9/11), people scream for more security... and they willingly give up their rights. And to get them back? Congress might hold slow, reasoned debates, without so much as a peep from the public.
They are holding hearings on the TSA now... I watched MTP, ThisWeek, and Fox News Sunday yesterday, and there wasn't so much as a mention of it.
And if you think it's just the media... then where are the protests of people concerned about their rights? Where were they the last 10 years?
Given the rarity of any terrorist attack before the TSA existed I would say that it is far more reasonable for the TSA to have the burden of proof why they should be allowed to continue to exist.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Here we see that saying "I support the liberal side of this recent political issue" is +5 insightful, while saying "I support the conservative side of this recent political issue" is -1 Troll. Slashdot: some things never change.
Are you joking? Slashdot is largely libertarian, not "liberal" (in the 20th / 21st century sense of liberal, not in the classical sense). However, Slashdot is not socially conservative, but then neither or most "live and let live" libertarians.
Unfortunately, as a country after 911 we said we don't care about our rights, just protect us from the terrorists. It's our own fault. Once you lose your liberty, it's hard to get it back. We might as well dismantle the Statue of Liberty, she doesn't stand for anything anymore.
I suppose I could have been a little more clear. Yes, I have a Rotax powered airplane, and yes, I have flown it around Alaska. The Rotax is a cranky, temperamental POS, but only when I'm trying to start it. Once running, mine, at least, has never missed a beat. The second caveat is that my airplane has a pretty good glide ratio -- much, much better than the Cessnas that I learned to fly in. Finally, the farthest I have flown *my* airplane is to Talkeetna, about 65 N.M. north of Anchorage. That's about a 1.5 - 2 hour trip in a Cessna, but I logged over three hours in my airplane on that trip.
As for the unforgiving environment...it is unforgiving, but I don't want to exaggerate the danger. There are some places where, if you crash, you are going to be in a world of hurt. The Alaska Range and the Brooks Range are great examples, and you have to cross the Alaska Range to get to the villages on the west coast I mentioned earlier. Merrill Pass, one of the gateways from southcentral Alaska where I live to the west coast is literally peppered with airplane wreckage. I flew that pass once, but on a day when the ceilings were 11,000 feet. Most pilots who get into trouble there do so on days when the weather is iffy. The problem is, you have to make a blind corner to enter the pass, which is really narrow. If the weather's good where you are at, but bad in the pass, you've got nowhere to go but into the clouds, and that's bad news in a narrow, almost vertical-walled canyon.
In other words, the flying is great here when the weather is good, but the weather can change quickly in some areas, and mountain flying introduces even more risk to the equation. Consequently, private airplanes are a common way to travel in the state, but it is unreliable, and a lot of routes simply aren't feasible without airlines due to the overall distance or the distance between possible fuel stops along your route.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Yeah. It's always seemed to me that because Slashdot generally consists of an intelligent, well-educated readership (bullshit posts and nonsense traditions aside), they have inherited some liberal social views, but the engineering contingent here is too strong to allow anything but a very pragmatic sort of outlook, because of which Slashdot tends to leans toward more conservative attitudes about the nature of ideas and justification. The libertarian streak within /.ers I think is mostly rooted in a kind of skepticism toward policy.
But yeah. Slashdot definitely has an archetypal political outlook, but it's not one quite so simple as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’.
The issue before congress was whether the mandate was a potential violation of the rights of religious institutions.
The mandate in this case being about women's health issues. How does this translate into excluding women completely from the discussion? No matter where you stand on this: obviously women should have been given the chance to argue why their rights do not infringe on religious freedom of other people.
Oh, make no mistake about it, it is a violation of the rights of religious institutions. I don't think that was ever in much question. The question is just how far do those rights extend? My religious rights, for example, do not give me the right to dictate your health care options. Why should it be any different for an employer dictating that an employee cannot have have contraceptive coverage for no incremental expense past what the coverage already costs?
That is why Sandra Fluke should have been allowed to testify in a panel regarding religious freedom. They had a panel made of people whose agenda is pushing that freedom as far as possible, even at the expense of the individual liberty of people like Sandra Fluke. Without her testimony, there was no one to say, "That's too far," and the panel--and the public--did not get a fair representation of the issue at hand.
Also, if you actually watch the panel, you will quickly see that it wasn't just about religious freedom. Every person who testified did so extensively about the issue of contraception. To pretend like contraception just happened to be an issue that came up is extremely dishonest and disingenuous. I for one do not believe that simply draping some issue in the mantle of religious freedom and not allowing any opposing viewpoints because, hey, it's not relevant to religious freedom, is not an acceptable way to debate.