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.
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).
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"
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.
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!
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
You are exactly correct. I was on a boating trip with several couples whom I didn't know and people started complaining about TSA. One poor woman ventured her opinion "but I think it's all ok because it keeps us safe"... I pointed out that I could kill plenty of people by wedging a bit of metal into a commuter track. She gave me a horrified look along with "Why would you even think of that?", but I think I made my point.
The problem is, they've already got a huge chunk of the country, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, convinced that we are under constant threat of attack. (It's the lizard brain, I guess). So once they put in place checkpoints EVERYWHERE (which yes, is their plan, the fascisty fucks), it will actually be a bit harder to find the evidence you and I have both noted (once everything is surveilled, it will be hard to argue there's been no attacks because no one is trying). Also, I suspect violence would actually go up, as more people joined resistance/anti-fascist/terrorist groups in response to a crackdown. But I'm just speculating.
"sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
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?
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!
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.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
From Gustave Gilbert's transcripts of his conversations with Herman Goering at Nuremberg:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.