Slashdot Mirror
Former DHS Official Blames Privacy Advocates For TSA's Aggressive Procedures
colinneagle writes with an interesting excerpt from Senate testimony offered yesterday, on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, from Stewart Baker. Baker formerly served as DHS Assistant Secretary and NSA General Counsel, and gave his opinion on the source of the real problems within the TSA, opining: "Unlike border officials, though, TSA ended up taking more time to inspect everyone, treating all travelers as potential terrorists, and subjecting many to whole-body imaging and enhanced pat-downs. We can't blame TSA for this wrong turn, though. Privacy lobbies persuaded Congress that TSA couldn't be trusted with data about the travelers it was screening. With no information about travelers, TSA had no choice but to treat them all alike, sending us down a long blind alley that has inconvenienced billions."
Sounds like the lesser of two evils to me. If you really think they would not have done both keeping data and the enhanced pat downs I have a bridge to sell you in New York. Slightly used.
What a strategy. Want to curtail both privacy and freedom? Set up a a blackmail scheme where you pit one against the other.
It's not my fault I beat you up. If you had just given me your lunch money you wouldn't have a black eye.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
It was all my fault for standing in line. Being there.
Won't happen again.
No, the problem with the TSA is that they exist in the first place. Airlines should be responsible for ensuring their flights are safe. When airlines handle safety they can be held accountable if they do it poorly or they mistreat their customers. The TSA can clearly never be held accountable for anything.
With no information about travelers, TSA had no choice but to treat them all alike,
What a horrifying reality, in which the government is forced to treat all citizens as equal. If the government were only allowed to pick and choose the dissidents to subject to harsh treatment and intimidation, all the properly submissive subjects would be free to do anything that doesn't irritate the lordship. You see, it is not the ruling elite who are imposing these restrictions that are harming you, it is your filthy fellow peasants. If you could all simply learn to kneel and submit to the natural authority of the nobility, you would all be happier.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Pedestrian's unwillingness to voluntarily surrender the contents of their pockets is the primary reason for so many of today's muggings.
The TSA checkpoints, pat downs, nude scanners, and so forth are a complete waste. No competent terrorist would be deterred by such things -- and "competent" here means "able to do more damage in an airplane than out." It is easy enough to make a makeshift weapon past the checkpoints, and the 9/11 hijackers all used makeshift weapons. I am not even plotting an attack and I can think of a half dozen ways to arm myself on the other side of a TSA checkpoint.
Basically the TSA is cover-your-ass security theater. If there is any kind of attack, nobody wants to be the politicians who voted to remove the TSA from our airports, regardless of whether or not the checkpoints make a difference.
Palm trees and 8
Exactly. Just like the police would probably catch a whole lot more "bad guys" if they could just bust into whomever's house they wanted to on a whim, go through their stuff looking for evidence, and not have to worry about warrants or anything. However, there are very good reasons that we prevent them from doing this. First and foremost because this power would be abused to intimidate. ("You said something we don't like so we're going to 'search' your house twice a week until we find something to lock you up on. Or until you shut up. Or until you resist the slightest bit so we're justified in shooting you.")
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
A buddy of mine was just telling me last week that his 3rd grade daughter was suspended for defending herself against a known bully; the school's rationale? She had a conversation with the bully once before, which in their eyes counts as a willing confrontation.
I wonder, sometimes, how much more fucked up these policies can get before the pendulum swings in the other direction.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Daughter, First Grade. Hit a biter after he drew blood on her and told him "BITING HURTS TOO BUT YOU KEEP DOING IT" while showing her leg when he ran to the teacher.
She was suspended for three days [of snacks and videogames I assure you] and I had to explain to her that sometimes very bad people are in charge, so doing a good thing makes them want to punish you.
Vice-principal wasn't too happy about the explanation being done in front of the teacher and the little bastard's parents, but we'll see about changing schools next year.