Maybe Little Johnny shouldn't borrow $100,000 if he doesn't have a reasonable plan for a career after graduation.
Maybe the banks shouldn't loan little Johnny $100,000 if he doesn't have a reasonable plan for paying it back.
Oh, what's that? The federal government guarantees all student loans? And the banks take advantage of that by loaning money to anyone and everyone who can claim to be studying, without performing any reasonable due diligence or oversight, because the banks know that one way or another, even if they bankrupt the student, they'll still get their money back?
Come on, who do you think is at fault here - the young teenager taking the easy money being offered? Or the multinational corporation with packages designed to temp said teenager, and profit massively out of the situation?
Government has a far greater influence than you suggest. When I was an undergraduate in the University of California (UC) system Bank of America and Citibank offered credit cards to students, even freshman. As an computer science major I was given a card with a $1,000 credit limit. This was typical for engineering, science and math type majors. Liberal arts majors were declined cards, presumably due to their lower expected earning potential. The liberal arts majors complained to the UC and the UC (emphasize its an arm of the California state government) then told the banks that if they did not offer cards to all majors they would not be allowed to market their cards on campus. So the banks started issuing cards to liberal arts majors.
Notice that something similar happened in the housing market. Government, both republicans and democrats over many decades, decided that home ownership would improve society and came up with various ways to encourage banks to make loans to individuals that they would not otherwise make loans to for credit risk reasons.
Would you like to bet that something similar occurred with respect to student loans? That banks may have been inclined to make loans to medical, law, business, engineering and science majors but much less inclined to make such loans to liberal arts majors. And that at some point there was government pressure on banks to not discriminate based upon area of study?
I would say that the government backing these loans (home or student) was part of the deal made to get the banks to make loans to people they would have otherwise been considered higher risks of default. So the government seems to be at fault to a some large degree here. Like so many government programs and incentives with noble and honorable intent the unintended consequences undo a lot of the good.
No, its not possible these days on average. The average public university costs close to 11034 a year according to the census. The average minimum wage is 7.35. That comes out to a 35 hour workweek alongside being a fulltime student (1823 hours).
11034 / 7.35 = 1501.22
1501.22 / 50 (2 off for vacation) = 30.02 hours per week
So it seems 30 hours per week. Note that this is with an *equal* number of hours all year and two weeks off for a vacation. In reality the student would work extra hours during the summer, and possibly during breaks. However for now lets just assume two months full time in the summer.
Again note that this assumes the student does not increase hours during christmas and spring breaks, plus the summer period used is only the length of an academic quarter so it is abbreviated. Lets go for a more aggressive student who only works part time while classes are in session (30 weeks), but still has their two weeks of vacation.
So 24 hours per week while school is in session, plus full time during breaks, while still taking off two weeks per year for vacation can pay for school. I worked 25-30 hours a week while earning a BS in Computer Science and it was not a hardship.
I'm not sure if the occupy movement wants all money out of politics or if they only want some money (those they disagree with) out of politics. I'm patiently waiting to see if the movement is legit, i.e. wants all organizational money out - for example corporate and union. I'm curious if the recent union participation is an attempt to get ahead of this or if there has been some sort of astroturfing going on, an attempt by various democratic party activists to manufacture their version of the "tea party". The movement seems to have been started by a canadian anti-consumerism group but without leadership or a message it could have easily spun out of their control. Not unlike the "tea party" starting out as anti-debt and anti-spending and criticizing both major parties but becoming increasingly associated with the republican party.
The "problem" is that voters are basically complacent and/or apathetic, and highly influenced by TV commercials and other campaign activities. So a better funded campaign has a distinct advantage. There is a general consensus that the "rich" and corporate interests have a disproportionate say. All of this ignores the simple fact that the reality is still one person one vote. Limiting political contributions does not change the core "problem" of voters not doing their homework. I cannot say that only allowing individuals to contribute to a political campaign is a bad idea, I just doubt that it will really fix things.
Regarding Stewart and Colbert, while they are often honest they are also occasionally incomplete in their portrayal. Which is fair since they are entertainers not journalists. Several things change a candidate's position. One major factor is the regional nature of the race. For example Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Massachusetts voters heavily favor democratic party candidates, much more so than most other parts of the country. So a republican running for the governorship there has to be a very moderate sort of republican. Similarly democrats running for the governorship in a state like Texas have to be a very conservative sort of democrat. When these candidates move from state to national elections they are facing voters with very different expectations and desires, and they often modify - excuse me, "clarify":-), their positions. This leads to the second problem. The party candidates are selected by the party members in "primary" elections. At the national level both parties have become increasingly intolerant of their respective moderate candidates. So democratic candidates have to appear solidly left leaning and republican candidates have to appear solidly right leaning. Once the candidate receives the party nomination they have yet another round of "clarifications" as they move more towards the center to have greater appeal to voters on a national level. Stewart and Colbert seem a little more eager to point out this sort of nonsense on the republican party side. It happens just as often on the democratic party side. Obama was an Illinois state legislator from a very left leaning district of Chicago. For 15 (?) years he attended the church of a somewhat radical minister who occasionally said some "strange" things. During the presidential campaign Obama said he never heard some of the controversial sermons and would have considered changing churches if he had. That's a bit hard to believe given the many years he attended that church. More likely is the fact that the reverend was a local power broker and no one got elected in that district of Chicago without his "blessing". So Obama just sat there in church and smiled at the crazy man. However when running for president Obama was quick to change churches due to the reverend's surprising and unacceptable statements.
True, I'm in Australia so things are a bit different. But it's still a case of the candidates having to raise money for their campaigns. They accepting donations from vested interests in return for their vote on certain policies. Is that not so?
Often a candidate states a position first and then donors contribute to candidates whose stated positions are agreeable. Of course its no secret who the local donors are so this can influence a candidates decision. As long as the position is known to voters before the election I suppose this is not too bad. For stuff that comes up during a term the votes are often not surprising, somewhat inline with previously stated positions. Then again on many issues there is sufficient flexibility that one can find previously stated positions and principles that can support either voting for or against a piece of legislation. One of the problems in our system is that a single piece of legislation can include things that are completely unrelated to each other, giving nearly any candidate an excuse to vote for it.
I have to disagree. What's the point in voting for one part or the other, if both are beholden to commercial interests over the greater good?
Why do you think people are apathetic about voting in the first place?
You don't vote for a party. You vote for an individual candidate. Once in office if the official does not behave responsibly you vote for his opponent. Repeat as necessary. Party is irrelevant.
80% of american news are owned by subsidiaries of 2 corporations in the chain. they can make anything that you dont want to know, remain unseen. like ron paul.
Unseen? Strange that you toss out the name "Ron Paul" and nearly all of us around here know exactly who you are referring to and many know what he stands for.
Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems.
No, you have to go deeper than that. The main problem underlying all others in the undue influence of money in politics.
You are not going deep enough. The true problem is voter complacency or apathy. One person one vote is where the ultimate power lies. No amount of TV commercials and such can overcome that, TV can only manipulate the complacent.
All of the above assumes the ones to be replaced, be politician or corporation, are inactive and dumb to act. and wont leverage their power for control.
What power do they have over your decision regarding who to vote for, what is their so called leverage? They can run all the TV commercials they want but if you decide to vote them out why would you change your mind?
Some people utter empty stuff like "vote em' out" and whatnot - but, if it has been possible, we wouldnt have been in this situation have we ? whomever you vote, result is the same. the machine has been usurped by those who serve the few. laws work differently for the rich and the poor.
The flaw in your logic is that you do not consider voter complacency or apathy. The fact is that most voters are loyal to their party. Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems. If you loyally vote for *your* party then your party can ignore you because your vote is secure, and the other party can ignore you because they can do nothing to earn your vote. Those who vote based upon a theoretical party platform are a big part of the problem. People need to make politicians realize that they will cross party lines for the slightest reason. This is the only way to make politicians responsive to the voters, to make politicians fear that there is no base they can rely upon.
Similarly consumers are in control, not corporate CEOs. Again the problem is consumer complacency or apathy. Corporate greed is actually a tool of control for the consumer since the consumer controls where their money is spent. The consumer can reward a company that behaves in a manner they prefer by giving them their business, and thereby punish another company that behaves in a manner they disapprove of. The result is that if enough consumers behave in this manner then the profit incentive, greed, tells companies to behave in a manner consumers approve of. If all CEOs care about is money then wave the money in the direction you want the CEO to go. The problem is that consumer seem to have no consideration other than a low price. So consumers get what they incentivize, low prices, regardless of how those prices are attained.
So you want change. Vote against politicians who behave against your wishes regardless of party and turn away from companies that behave against your wishes. Protests will accomplish little beyond raising awareness and educating individuals. Talk must be followed by action. Protests are talk, votes and spending are actions.
Your link is a non sequitur, and the worst on Al-Awlaki is a couple of convictions for prostitution and guilt-by-association attacks. But, I look forward to you supporting a drone strike on Glenn Beck's house for providing the same level of "involvement" with the guy that wanted to shoot up the Tides Foundation.
I merely offered the link so that other readers may see your silliness for what it is. I had no expectation of altering your viewpoint any more than I expect to alter the viewpoint of a 9/11 truther, a global warming denier, etc.
When Beck posts a video calling "for Muslims around the world to kill Americans "without hesitation"" and is found driving around with al-Qaeda bomb makers and such I'd be happy to support another drone strike. Until then...
I think it is also relevant that he was a leader in a group that declared war on the U.S.
It's also relevant that neither of those things happens to be true. He wasn't a leader of Al Queda, and Al Queda in Iraq (or in this case Yemen) is not the same thing as Al Queda in Afghanistan.
It would be hard to argue that a leader in a group that the US has effectively declared war on (including resolutions of Congress that authorize military force) is not a legitimate military target.
I think it is also relevant that he was a leader in a group that declared war on the U.S.
Since when does being a government employee interfere with your freedom of speech?
Since he volunteered to work for the State Department and work in a diplomatic function. When working as a diplomat any public statements can reflect upon the United States government, not you merely yourself as an individual.
> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?
Zero.
Citation, please.
Did you miss the link that accompanied the quote? It details the 30 plots.
I'm sure the experience of being stopped will be different in each case. In one they're just stopping you for a random check. In the other, it's because they *think you're a terrorist*.
And the agent would be more relaxed than when the police interview a person on the street. The agent would know about the 2% false positive rate and the bad guy trying to stealthily pass through security would most likely not be currently armed. The weapon would probably be something disassembled and secreted. It would be like the traffic stops that get routine, but without the actual danger that comes with becoming relaxed due to routine.
Oh jeez please say you're not advocating racial profiling so I don't have to go through my usual rant. But I'll fire a warning shot across your bow: Anders Behring Breivik.
Your shot is premature. Note that this system is automated and only selects individuals who in fact *mathematically* facially resemble a *specific* individual.
But if you happen to look like Abul bin Awfulguy it means that you will be inconvenienced every time you go to the airport. Everytime. While that might be fine for you (or might not, did you know you look just like Sean McIRAnut?), it's not exactly great for Robert Hussien. Who's a fourth generation American, and has a security clearance, but convince the automated systems of that why don't you?
If you in fact look like Abul bin Awfulguy or Sean McIRAnut shouldn't security stop you and have a chat to determine if you merely resemble or actually are the person in question? Should a human security agent who thinks he recognizes the aforementioned individuals not do anything unless the random number generator says its their turn for a conversation?
Again, I see the unfairness to the folks who resemble a bad guy, but I'm not sure the cost of "fairness" is reasonable. Especially if some biometric ID is available for frequent fliers who wish to have such an ID. The security guard calls me to the side and asks me if I am Sean, I provide the gov't issued known flier biometric ID to show that I am actually Seamus. He thanks me for my cooperation and apologizes for the inconvenience, its done in less than a minute. I am then far more inconvenienced as my knees are jammed into the seat in front of me for hours during the flight.
Those 2% start to get a bit pissed off after the first two or three times. I suspect we might prefer to stick to random in the interests of fairness.
The problem with randomness is that it is less effective since finite time is spent on low probability individuals. What is fair about increasing the likelihood that a bad guy gets through an innocents die? I think what you describe is better described as a facade of political correctness than fairness.
Perhaps the inconvenience could be ameliorated with the known/trusted flier biometric IDs that some are proposing.
Again, I see the unfair burden placed on the 2%, as I said its a negative/negative decision.
Because terrorists all have facebook accounts? I would assume most of them have very little online presence, pictorially anyway.
Oddly whenever a new terrorist is discovered and remains at large law enforcement and the mass media seem to be able to come up with a facial photo. Perhaps there are sources of photos other than facebook, in particular sources available to government agencies. DMV photo, passport photo, school photos, team photos, etc.
The experiment is facebook centric because it is an academic project that needs to stick to info made public by the individual to avoid privacy issues.
You mean to tell me that 98% accuracy when trying to spot terrorists in airports isn't good enough? That's only 200,000 false positives per year for a typical airport.
Perhaps the false positives at airports are OK? Rather than randomly choosing people for more attentive searchers, and the occasional grandma to give the facade of fairness and not profiling, we could focus on the 2% who are higher probability. Of course 2% are unfairly inconvenienced but isn't that better than 100% unfairly inconvenienced? Clearly a negative/negative decision.
Of course this is all academic and falls apart if the false negatives are at a non-trivial level.
> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe Little Johnny shouldn't borrow $100,000 if he doesn't have a reasonable plan for a career after graduation.
Maybe the banks shouldn't loan little Johnny $100,000 if he doesn't have a reasonable plan for paying it back. Oh, what's that? The federal government guarantees all student loans? And the banks take advantage of that by loaning money to anyone and everyone who can claim to be studying, without performing any reasonable due diligence or oversight, because the banks know that one way or another, even if they bankrupt the student, they'll still get their money back? Come on, who do you think is at fault here - the young teenager taking the easy money being offered? Or the multinational corporation with packages designed to temp said teenager, and profit massively out of the situation?
Government has a far greater influence than you suggest. When I was an undergraduate in the University of California (UC) system Bank of America and Citibank offered credit cards to students, even freshman. As an computer science major I was given a card with a $1,000 credit limit. This was typical for engineering, science and math type majors. Liberal arts majors were declined cards, presumably due to their lower expected earning potential. The liberal arts majors complained to the UC and the UC (emphasize its an arm of the California state government) then told the banks that if they did not offer cards to all majors they would not be allowed to market their cards on campus. So the banks started issuing cards to liberal arts majors.
Notice that something similar happened in the housing market. Government, both republicans and democrats over many decades, decided that home ownership would improve society and came up with various ways to encourage banks to make loans to individuals that they would not otherwise make loans to for credit risk reasons.
Would you like to bet that something similar occurred with respect to student loans? That banks may have been inclined to make loans to medical, law, business, engineering and science majors but much less inclined to make such loans to liberal arts majors. And that at some point there was government pressure on banks to not discriminate based upon area of study?
I would say that the government backing these loans (home or student) was part of the deal made to get the banks to make loans to people they would have otherwise been considered higher risks of default. So the government seems to be at fault to a some large degree here. Like so many government programs and incentives with noble and honorable intent the unintended consequences undo a lot of the good.
No, its not possible these days on average. The average public university costs close to 11034 a year according to the census. The average minimum wage is 7.35. That comes out to a 35 hour workweek alongside being a fulltime student (1823 hours).
11034 / 7.35 = 1501.22
1501.22 / 50 (2 off for vacation) = 30.02 hours per week
So it seems 30 hours per week. Note that this is with an *equal* number of hours all year and two weeks off for a vacation. In reality the student would work extra hours during the summer, and possibly during breaks. However for now lets just assume two months full time in the summer.
7.35 * 40 * 10 = 2940
11034 - 2940 = 8094
8094 / 7.35 = 1101.22
1101.22 / 40 = 27.53 hours per week
Again note that this assumes the student does not increase hours during christmas and spring breaks, plus the summer period used is only the length of an academic quarter so it is abbreviated. Lets go for a more aggressive student who only works part time while classes are in session (30 weeks), but still has their two weeks of vacation.
7.35 * 40 * 20 = 5880
11034 - 5880 = 5154
5154 / 7.35 = 701.22
701.22 / 30 = 23.37 hours per week
So 24 hours per week while school is in session, plus full time during breaks, while still taking off two weeks per year for vacation can pay for school. I worked 25-30 hours a week while earning a BS in Computer Science and it was not a hardship.
I'm not sure if the occupy movement wants all money out of politics or if they only want some money (those they disagree with) out of politics. I'm patiently waiting to see if the movement is legit, i.e. wants all organizational money out - for example corporate and union. I'm curious if the recent union participation is an attempt to get ahead of this or if there has been some sort of astroturfing going on, an attempt by various democratic party activists to manufacture their version of the "tea party". The movement seems to have been started by a canadian anti-consumerism group but without leadership or a message it could have easily spun out of their control. Not unlike the "tea party" starting out as anti-debt and anti-spending and criticizing both major parties but becoming increasingly associated with the republican party.
:-), their positions. This leads to the second problem. The party candidates are selected by the party members in "primary" elections. At the national level both parties have become increasingly intolerant of their respective moderate candidates. So democratic candidates have to appear solidly left leaning and republican candidates have to appear solidly right leaning. Once the candidate receives the party nomination they have yet another round of "clarifications" as they move more towards the center to have greater appeal to voters on a national level. Stewart and Colbert seem a little more eager to point out this sort of nonsense on the republican party side. It happens just as often on the democratic party side. Obama was an Illinois state legislator from a very left leaning district of Chicago. For 15 (?) years he attended the church of a somewhat radical minister who occasionally said some "strange" things. During the presidential campaign Obama said he never heard some of the controversial sermons and would have considered changing churches if he had. That's a bit hard to believe given the many years he attended that church. More likely is the fact that the reverend was a local power broker and no one got elected in that district of Chicago without his "blessing". So Obama just sat there in church and smiled at the crazy man. However when running for president Obama was quick to change churches due to the reverend's surprising and unacceptable statements.
The "problem" is that voters are basically complacent and/or apathetic, and highly influenced by TV commercials and other campaign activities. So a better funded campaign has a distinct advantage. There is a general consensus that the "rich" and corporate interests have a disproportionate say. All of this ignores the simple fact that the reality is still one person one vote. Limiting political contributions does not change the core "problem" of voters not doing their homework. I cannot say that only allowing individuals to contribute to a political campaign is a bad idea, I just doubt that it will really fix things.
Regarding Stewart and Colbert, while they are often honest they are also occasionally incomplete in their portrayal. Which is fair since they are entertainers not journalists. Several things change a candidate's position. One major factor is the regional nature of the race. For example Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Massachusetts voters heavily favor democratic party candidates, much more so than most other parts of the country. So a republican running for the governorship there has to be a very moderate sort of republican. Similarly democrats running for the governorship in a state like Texas have to be a very conservative sort of democrat. When these candidates move from state to national elections they are facing voters with very different expectations and desires, and they often modify - excuse me, "clarify"
True, I'm in Australia so things are a bit different. But it's still a case of the candidates having to raise money for their campaigns. They accepting donations from vested interests in return for their vote on certain policies. Is that not so?
Often a candidate states a position first and then donors contribute to candidates whose stated positions are agreeable. Of course its no secret who the local donors are so this can influence a candidates decision. As long as the position is known to voters before the election I suppose this is not too bad. For stuff that comes up during a term the votes are often not surprising, somewhat inline with previously stated positions. Then again on many issues there is sufficient flexibility that one can find previously stated positions and principles that can support either voting for or against a piece of legislation. One of the problems in our system is that a single piece of legislation can include things that are completely unrelated to each other, giving nearly any candidate an excuse to vote for it.
I have to disagree. What's the point in voting for one part or the other, if both are beholden to commercial interests over the greater good?
Why do you think people are apathetic about voting in the first place?
You don't vote for a party. You vote for an individual candidate. Once in office if the official does not behave responsibly you vote for his opponent. Repeat as necessary. Party is irrelevant.
80% of american news are owned by subsidiaries of 2 corporations in the chain. they can make anything that you dont want to know, remain unseen. like ron paul.
Unseen? Strange that you toss out the name "Ron Paul" and nearly all of us around here know exactly who you are referring to and many know what he stands for.
Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems.
No, you have to go deeper than that. The main problem underlying all others in the undue influence of money in politics.
You are not going deep enough. The true problem is voter complacency or apathy. One person one vote is where the ultimate power lies. No amount of TV commercials and such can overcome that, TV can only manipulate the complacent.
Didn't Al Gore invent the moon?
No, but some would argue he invented lunacy. :-)
All of the above assumes the ones to be replaced, be politician or corporation, are inactive and dumb to act. and wont leverage their power for control.
What power do they have over your decision regarding who to vote for, what is their so called leverage? They can run all the TV commercials they want but if you decide to vote them out why would you change your mind?
Some people utter empty stuff like "vote em' out" and whatnot - but, if it has been possible, we wouldnt have been in this situation have we ? whomever you vote, result is the same. the machine has been usurped by those who serve the few. laws work differently for the rich and the poor.
The flaw in your logic is that you do not consider voter complacency or apathy. The fact is that most voters are loyal to their party. Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems. If you loyally vote for *your* party then your party can ignore you because your vote is secure, and the other party can ignore you because they can do nothing to earn your vote. Those who vote based upon a theoretical party platform are a big part of the problem. People need to make politicians realize that they will cross party lines for the slightest reason. This is the only way to make politicians responsive to the voters, to make politicians fear that there is no base they can rely upon.
Similarly consumers are in control, not corporate CEOs. Again the problem is consumer complacency or apathy. Corporate greed is actually a tool of control for the consumer since the consumer controls where their money is spent. The consumer can reward a company that behaves in a manner they prefer by giving them their business, and thereby punish another company that behaves in a manner they disapprove of. The result is that if enough consumers behave in this manner then the profit incentive, greed, tells companies to behave in a manner consumers approve of. If all CEOs care about is money then wave the money in the direction you want the CEO to go. The problem is that consumer seem to have no consideration other than a low price. So consumers get what they incentivize, low prices, regardless of how those prices are attained.
So you want change. Vote against politicians who behave against your wishes regardless of party and turn away from companies that behave against your wishes. Protests will accomplish little beyond raising awareness and educating individuals. Talk must be followed by action. Protests are talk, votes and spending are actions.
...more and more people will turn to the one button wipe my bum for me interface ...
Its a vast improvement over the three sea shells.
Your link is a non sequitur, and the worst on Al-Awlaki is a couple of convictions for prostitution and guilt-by-association attacks. But, I look forward to you supporting a drone strike on Glenn Beck's house for providing the same level of "involvement" with the guy that wanted to shoot up the Tides Foundation.
I merely offered the link so that other readers may see your silliness for what it is. I had no expectation of altering your viewpoint any more than I expect to alter the viewpoint of a 9/11 truther, a global warming denier, etc.
...
When Beck posts a video calling "for Muslims around the world to kill Americans "without hesitation"" and is found driving around with al-Qaeda bomb makers and such I'd be happy to support another drone strike. Until then
It's also relevant that neither of those things happens to be true. He wasn't a leader of Al Queda, and Al Queda in Iraq (or in this case Yemen) is not the same thing as Al Queda in Afghanistan.
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has not only declared war but committed acts of war. al-Awlaki was involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
i dont remember congress declaring war. did i miss something?
The other guys declaring war on the U.S. That should count for something.
Q: Who is the war against?
A. Guys who declared war on the U.S.
FTFY
It would be hard to argue that a leader in a group that the US has effectively declared war on (including resolutions of Congress that authorize military force) is not a legitimate military target.
I think it is also relevant that he was a leader in a group that declared war on the U.S.
Since when does being a government employee interfere with your freedom of speech?
Since he volunteered to work for the State Department and work in a diplomatic function. When working as a diplomat any public statements can reflect upon the United States government, not you merely yourself as an individual.
> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?
Zero.
Citation, please.
Did you miss the link that accompanied the quote? It details the 30 plots.
I'm sure the experience of being stopped will be different in each case. In one they're just stopping you for a random check. In the other, it's because they *think you're a terrorist*.
And the agent would be more relaxed than when the police interview a person on the street. The agent would know about the 2% false positive rate and the bad guy trying to stealthily pass through security would most likely not be currently armed. The weapon would probably be something disassembled and secreted. It would be like the traffic stops that get routine, but without the actual danger that comes with becoming relaxed due to routine.
Oh jeez please say you're not advocating racial profiling so I don't have to go through my usual rant. But I'll fire a warning shot across your bow: Anders Behring Breivik.
Your shot is premature. Note that this system is automated and only selects individuals who in fact *mathematically* facially resemble a *specific* individual.
But if you happen to look like Abul bin Awfulguy it means that you will be inconvenienced every time you go to the airport. Everytime. While that might be fine for you (or might not, did you know you look just like Sean McIRAnut?), it's not exactly great for Robert Hussien. Who's a fourth generation American, and has a security clearance, but convince the automated systems of that why don't you?
If you in fact look like Abul bin Awfulguy or Sean McIRAnut shouldn't security stop you and have a chat to determine if you merely resemble or actually are the person in question? Should a human security agent who thinks he recognizes the aforementioned individuals not do anything unless the random number generator says its their turn for a conversation?
Again, I see the unfairness to the folks who resemble a bad guy, but I'm not sure the cost of "fairness" is reasonable. Especially if some biometric ID is available for frequent fliers who wish to have such an ID. The security guard calls me to the side and asks me if I am Sean, I provide the gov't issued known flier biometric ID to show that I am actually Seamus. He thanks me for my cooperation and apologizes for the inconvenience, its done in less than a minute. I am then far more inconvenienced as my knees are jammed into the seat in front of me for hours during the flight.
Those 2% start to get a bit pissed off after the first two or three times. I suspect we might prefer to stick to random in the interests of fairness.
The problem with randomness is that it is less effective since finite time is spent on low probability individuals. What is fair about increasing the likelihood that a bad guy gets through an innocents die? I think what you describe is better described as a facade of political correctness than fairness.
Perhaps the inconvenience could be ameliorated with the known/trusted flier biometric IDs that some are proposing.
Again, I see the unfair burden placed on the 2%, as I said its a negative/negative decision.
Because terrorists all have facebook accounts? I would assume most of them have very little online presence, pictorially anyway.
Oddly whenever a new terrorist is discovered and remains at large law enforcement and the mass media seem to be able to come up with a facial photo. Perhaps there are sources of photos other than facebook, in particular sources available to government agencies. DMV photo, passport photo, school photos, team photos, etc.
The experiment is facebook centric because it is an academic project that needs to stick to info made public by the individual to avoid privacy issues.
You mean to tell me that 98% accuracy when trying to spot terrorists in airports isn't good enough? That's only 200,000 false positives per year for a typical airport.
Perhaps the false positives at airports are OK? Rather than randomly choosing people for more attentive searchers, and the occasional grandma to give the facade of fairness and not profiling, we could focus on the 2% who are higher probability. Of course 2% are unfairly inconvenienced but isn't that better than 100% unfairly inconvenienced? Clearly a negative/negative decision.
Of course this is all academic and falls apart if the false negatives are at a non-trivial level.
> "Since September 11, 2001, at least 30 planned terrorist attacks have been foiled, all but two of them prevented by law enforcement."
How many of those terrorist attacks were instigated by agents provocateur, among "terrorists" who would have been merely disgruntled immigrants (or citizens) without the intervention of some "law enforcement agency"?
Zero.