How about plain removing the scanners. That'd be some Passenger advocacy right there.
That does nothing to get the public comfortable with a police state. Passenger advocacy only matters when this is about the passengers, which security theater is most certainly not.
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
Yeah, because if people stop flying no one in government will think to make groping mandatory for getting on a bus or train.
The only effective solution is to vote intelligently. That works in theory. The candidate list makes that pretty difficult.
It is quite likely you do not get the same patdown as an attractive woman does. It is also quite likely that an invasive patdown will not trigger memories of other invasive, unwelcome groping you may have had in the past, which is not as uncommon of an issue as you might think.
Either way, the scanners and groping do nothing to preserve or enhance the safety of the flying public. It all needs to be done away with immediately.
There is absolutely no difference, and no court will ever find that there is.
If they wanted her fingerprint, they would have it. They want the password but do not have it. Obviously there is a difference.
Back to your failure to delineate testimony from evidence, the fingerprint and corresponding finger have obviously been reduced to tangible form while the password remains testimony. The only way they can get what they want is to coerce her into divulging it. Without her testimony, there is zero evidence other than a collection of bits that are presumed to contain encrypted data. Without her testimony it cannot be proven that the presumed encrypted volume actually contains data.
You should read up on this. Courts have already issued differing opinions on the subject. This will absolutely reach the Supreme Court. It is not a question of if, but a question of when.
Suppose the hard drive could be unlocked using her fingerprint. Would her fifth amendment rights allow her to refuse to submit to fingerprinting?
No. Back to the differences above for the reasoning. A bit off subject, but you do make a good argument as to why one would be foolish to rely on biometrics for securing anything that they found truly valuable or wished to keep a secret. It is best to think of biometric security like the lock on the front door of your house -- it will keep honest folks out.
I hope she stick to her guns. There is more at stake here than you seem to realize.
demonstrating that actual sea grasses have been disappearing at an accelerating rate.
Great. No argument with that fact the amount of sea grass is changing. No argument that the climate is changing. These are measurable facts without debate. The causal links and speculation to what correction should be made is the question.
But as is common with any challenge to the religion of global warming, the questioner is labeled a "denier", sometimes presented with circumstantial proof, and insulted.
Science that cannot tolerate to be questioned is not science.
There's a big difference between withholding evidence and withholding testimony.
And there is your conundrum. The password has apparently never been reduced to tangible form. It is only available through testimony. Testimony that may prove incriminating.
It may be black and white to you, but this is a very grey area and unlikely to be settled in the near future.
Your assumption that those that disagree with you are "untrained" or otherwise unknowledgeable is the first fatal flaw in your position.
You should tell the world's military leaders to should stop training support gunners.
It depends on the type of battle they anticipate. If I found myself fighting as an "insurgent" I would be happy my opponent was focusing their effort in the wrong areas.
That's only if you assume the person on trial is guilty. We assume the person is innocent, so there's no reason to believe that the contents of a personal hard drive would be incriminating.
Wrong. The threat of contempt is being held over her. She is being coerced with the threat of incarceration with no burden of proof being met for not disclosing the password.
One is not supposed to be required to prove their innocence. If the defendant is presumed innocent and the contents of the hard drive are presumed not to be incriminating, there is no reason to coerce their disclosure.
You are required to turn over documents, and can be held in contempt for refusing.
This issue is far different that turning over documents. Revealing a password is more akin to being forced to write a confession, sign it, and then turn it over.
Your conclusion is correct. The defendant in in jeopardy of being jailed for contempt, indefinitely, for what a judge thinks she may know.
It's worked pretty well in a number of insurgent wars in the last couple decades. Also, many semi-auto weapons are relatively easy to modify to make automatic fire possible.
These statements are completely incongruent. Full auto is a great way to turn ammo into noise. Only the untrained or those in panic mode opt for full auto fire.
Logistics has very little to do with ammunition. The absolute hardest part of maintaining troops is feeding them and removing the waste. A disrupted supply line can be disastrous for a fighting force. It is a hell of a lot easier to take on the best army in the world if they haven't had food or clean water for 5 days.
There is no terrorist problem in the US either. There is a major problem with the government eroding our liberty in the name of a non-existent terrorist problem.
because you're being singled out as a potential threat, however random the process might be
That's the problem. If it were about terrorists, it wouldn't be random. It is about control over the general population.
I do understand the need for security for all passengers
Invasive airport screening has nothing to do with security. Once you start arguing that as the basis of what is going on, you have completely fallen for the decoy argument and lost.
making us all feel like we are not to be trusted by the government
the government is effectively saying that we're all potential terrorists
These are not the same thing. The first is absolutely true. The second is a smoke screen for the distrust. It is about power and control. The government wishes to institute controls to retain and expand power.
Slashdot Mirror
How about plain removing the scanners. That'd be some Passenger advocacy right there.
That does nothing to get the public comfortable with a police state. Passenger advocacy only matters when this is about the passengers, which security theater is most certainly not.
I always ask the groper, "how do you feel about your mother being treated this way"
Fantastic. I'm using this the next time I fly.
A possibly more effective solution: Refuse to fly. Take a bus, take a train, drive, or forgo travel, but don't pay into the system by buying a plane ticket.
Yeah, because if people stop flying no one in government will think to make groping mandatory for getting on a bus or train.
The only effective solution is to vote intelligently. That works in theory. The candidate list makes that pretty difficult.
It is quite likely you do not get the same patdown as an attractive woman does. It is also quite likely that an invasive patdown will not trigger memories of other invasive, unwelcome groping you may have had in the past, which is not as uncommon of an issue as you might think.
Either way, the scanners and groping do nothing to preserve or enhance the safety of the flying public. It all needs to be done away with immediately.
BTW, it clearly doesn't work on toothpaste or any other metal container.
That doesn't matter, mainly because this has nothing to do about safety or security. At least not the safety and security of the flying public.
The government already thinks you are a terrorist. They will roll out the next "illegal" or "suspicious" activity when it suits them.
Thanks for posting, Al.
Everyone knows Al Gore invented the Internet.
We are suing Google because we have no life and are stupid. We can prove, in court, we have no life and are stupid. Pay up Google.
Please, present evidence as to why this science needs to be held to the unusually rigorous standards
Please present evidence that your argument has met any standard of science.
so that I can inform you which oil company paid them to say that.
A better question: who paid for the conflicting studies?
There is absolutely no difference, and no court will ever find that there is.
If they wanted her fingerprint, they would have it. They want the password but do not have it. Obviously there is a difference.
Back to your failure to delineate testimony from evidence, the fingerprint and corresponding finger have obviously been reduced to tangible form while the password remains testimony. The only way they can get what they want is to coerce her into divulging it. Without her testimony, there is zero evidence other than a collection of bits that are presumed to contain encrypted data. Without her testimony it cannot be proven that the presumed encrypted volume actually contains data.
You should read up on this. Courts have already issued differing opinions on the subject. This will absolutely reach the Supreme Court. It is not a question of if, but a question of when.
Suppose the hard drive could be unlocked using her fingerprint. Would her fifth amendment rights allow her to refuse to submit to fingerprinting?
No. Back to the differences above for the reasoning. A bit off subject, but you do make a good argument as to why one would be foolish to rely on biometrics for securing anything that they found truly valuable or wished to keep a secret. It is best to think of biometric security like the lock on the front door of your house -- it will keep honest folks out.
I hope she stick to her guns. There is more at stake here than you seem to realize.
demonstrating that actual sea grasses have been disappearing at an accelerating rate.
Great. No argument with that fact the amount of sea grass is changing. No argument that the climate is changing. These are measurable facts without debate. The causal links and speculation to what correction should be made is the question.
But as is common with any challenge to the religion of global warming, the questioner is labeled a "denier", sometimes presented with circumstantial proof, and insulted.
Science that cannot tolerate to be questioned is not science.
There's a big difference between withholding evidence and withholding testimony.
And there is your conundrum. The password has apparently never been reduced to tangible form. It is only available through testimony. Testimony that may prove incriminating.
It may be black and white to you, but this is a very grey area and unlikely to be settled in the near future.
You should tell the world's military leaders to should stop training support gunners.
It depends on the type of battle they anticipate. If I found myself fighting as an "insurgent" I would be happy my opponent was focusing their effort in the wrong areas.
Ahhh yes, silent introspection of scholarly works citing hypothesis and speculation. I stand in awe in the shadow of your scientific prowess.
That's only if you assume the person on trial is guilty. We assume the person is innocent, so there's no reason to believe that the contents of a personal hard drive would be incriminating.
Wrong. The threat of contempt is being held over her. She is being coerced with the threat of incarceration with no burden of proof being met for not disclosing the password.
One is not supposed to be required to prove their innocence. If the defendant is presumed innocent and the contents of the hard drive are presumed not to be incriminating, there is no reason to coerce their disclosure.
But if it's 200k years old, hasn't it already survived some serious climate change?
That was different. We're talking about man made climate change, which is obviously much worse and must be stopped.
The only reasonable conclusion is that scientists are heretics and must all be killed.
You are required to turn over documents, and can be held in contempt for refusing.
This issue is far different that turning over documents. Revealing a password is more akin to being forced to write a confession, sign it, and then turn it over.
Your conclusion is correct. The defendant in in jeopardy of being jailed for contempt, indefinitely, for what a judge thinks she may know.
It's worked pretty well in a number of insurgent wars in the last couple decades. Also, many semi-auto weapons are relatively easy to modify to make automatic fire possible.
These statements are completely incongruent. Full auto is a great way to turn ammo into noise. Only the untrained or those in panic mode opt for full auto fire.
Logistics has very little to do with ammunition. The absolute hardest part of maintaining troops is feeding them and removing the waste. A disrupted supply line can be disastrous for a fighting force. It is a hell of a lot easier to take on the best army in the world if they haven't had food or clean water for 5 days.
It must be a permanent part of the position. Holder seems fond of not knowing what he knew as well.
2) Gravity isn't kind to women's upper chest. Zero gravity is even less kind.
With the proper implants gravity has seemingly little effect on Earth.
God knows what it does to a man.
Hence the need for experimentation.
We don't have a terrorist problem in Australia.
There is no terrorist problem in the US either. There is a major problem with the government eroding our liberty in the name of a non-existent terrorist problem.
because you're being singled out as a potential threat, however random the process might be
That's the problem. If it were about terrorists, it wouldn't be random. It is about control over the general population.
I do understand the need for security for all passengers
Invasive airport screening has nothing to do with security. Once you start arguing that as the basis of what is going on, you have completely fallen for the decoy argument and lost.
making us all feel like we are not to be trusted by the government
the government is effectively saying that we're all potential terrorists
These are not the same thing. The first is absolutely true. The second is a smoke screen for the distrust. It is about power and control. The government wishes to institute controls to retain and expand power.
Would some Aussie please fill us in... what is this for?
A proof-of-concept for USA and Europe should the follow?
Apparently you haven't flown in the USA recently. The Aussie version isn't too far off.