How about after it's over? You can't wake up the next day and say no, for instance.
Really? So if you go to bed with a woman, rock her world before you go to sleep, and when you wake up she says "no", you think you can force her to have sex with you because she said yes last night and "can't wake up the next day and say no"?
Stop being stupid. Saying "no" doesn't mean you suddenly weren't permitted to do what was already done, it means you cannot continue. If you continue after being told 'no', it's called 'rape'. What you did was with consent; what you are now doing is not.
Lets say your ISP assigns you 10.0.32.128. Now, kindly tell me how you plan to connect to your home PC from work.
Ok. Simple. Remember that for packets to get BACK to you from any server outside your own home network, you must have a routable address visible to the world. So, even though your home network is in the 10.0.0.0 net, your visible presence on the net is completely routable.
Create a cron job that makes some loggable contact with your system at work from home, and you now have logged that visible, routable home address. Configure your home router to pass the port for whatever service you want to access from work to the system that can deal with it at home. Connect to that address using that port.
I do this on a daily basis, from work to a home server behind Comcast.
If this is insufficient for you, then configure an SSH tunnel from your home system to one at work, forwarding a port from the home system to the one at work. I do this daily, as well. I have a PeeCee with PuTTY forwarding the VNC port on that PeeCee out to a system at work. I run my local VNC server to connect to my local host on the local port, and I'm in control of that PC. I have two or three other systems around the world behind local firewalls/NAT boxes that also create SSH tunnels to a system at work. I SSH from my work system to localhost at the port I've designated for the tunnel to appear on, and bingo, I'm talking to the remote system.
No, it's not an ideal way of doing things, but it's better than crying and complaining that I can't do what I need to do because those nasty people are running a firewall/NAT box.
And the best part for ISPs is, NAT turns the Internet from its inherent peer-to-peer nature into a client/server architecture where all home users can be relegated to "content consumers" under cover of IP4 address shortages. Score!
Well, I'd hazard to guess that 95% of the home users ARE only clients. Maybe 99%.
A lot of the rest of us get along pretty well with putting our servers behind a router/NAT that lets us define which ports get forwarded to which systems behind the router, thus adding "firewall" as a feature.
The only drawback is when you are assigned an address via DHCP, and that's not a complete kill. I've got several systems around the planet that are behind a NAT/firewall and it is only an inconvenience, not a fatal problem.
Anyway I think the chances of these accusations against Assange being completely unrelated to the leak and the timing being coincidental are pretty slim.
I seem to recall a media kerfluffle a while back where Julian was charged with rape -- before the "cablegate" and impending "real bad bank and pharma and whatever" releases. Hard to claim something that started before the release of classified documents was caused by that release, isn't it?
I don't understand - the condom broke in the middle so she asked him to stop, he didn't - and that's rape?
At what point does a woman lose the right to say "no" and have it mean something? I mean, in your world, once she lets you bang her she's lost the right to say no forever? Or can she change her mind? Yes, even in the middle of the act. Especially when your only form of contraception is suddenly broken and she's facing the possibility of a pregnancy if you don't stop. How about if it is only that you start screaming out someone else's name in your heat of passion, killing hers?
So please explain the removal of all those banking regulations.
Barney Frank.
Christopher Dodd
Barack H. Obama
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
And every other Democrat in the Democrat-controlled congress that stood in the way of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reforms during the Bush administration, after it was clear to anyone with even half a brain that there was a problem with bad mortgages and financial instruments, instead parroting the mantra "there is no problem..." and clicking their ruby slippers until it was time to go home for recess.
Now, we do need to cut Obama a little slack on this, since he was there only two years prior to becoming President Obama, and he spent most of those two years campaigning for President instead of paying attention to the legislative duties the people of Illinois elected him to. But he had a chance to do something before the bottom fell out and joined his party line in doing nothing.
I fail to see a meaningful distinction between your definition and the OPs.
Then it is useless to continue this discussion. If you can't see a difference between "can do no wrong" and "not perfect", then we have no common ground upon which communications could profit.
Mainly because such a belief inevitably leads to exactly the same consequences - ruthless arrogance.
Yes, it is clear that there is no common ground, nay, not even a common language, with which we can converse.
If it's bad for Wikileaks to operate without transparency, it's also bad for the US government and corporations to operate without transparency.
Incorrect.
There are functions of government that demand secrecy -- a lack of this "transparency" you glibly refer to. Defense is just one area. Diplomacy another. Corporations also require some ability at opaqueness. Product development cycles and next generation planning for releases are just two.
Wikileaks, on the other hand, exists to provide accurate and corroborated data to the public. At least, it is supposed to exist for that reason. Publishing things that make one side look bad while sitting on information that would exonerate it is unethical. That process needs to be transparent.
The kind of crap where someone at company A sends a memo around saying "what about doing this?", and a quick response says "you can't do that", where Wikileaks reports the "what about" but not the "no" memo, is patently dishonest. "Company A plans to..." is the headline, when the truth is nothing even remotely like that.
If it is information about massive fraud and criminal enterprise against the public (and let's face it, that's exactly what it is going to be),
No, I will not accept it on its face that "that's exactly what it is going to be", because I've seen the other stuff from Wikileaks and know they lie.
I need go no further than their main page for "cablegate", where they claim that the information is "public domain" -- and yet they clearly understand that some of it is classified and thus clearly NOT public domain.
It may be, IN THEIR OPINION, about "massive fraud", but that's just their opinion, and they've shown nothing but bias in the material from them I've seen. If there's massive fraud and corruption, give the material to the justice department so they can do their job, not spew random memos about hoping something sticks.
If you are one of the people who goes "OMG, someone from the state department met with someone from Kuwait, and someone from Kuwait said, OMG, they were concerned about Iran's growing nuclear capability, and OMG that proves there's such massive corruption and espionage and stuff going on in the US", well, that's just sad. That's the content of one of the incredibly damaging cables Wikileaks is hyping as proof of a massive coverup of something. Yawn.
It just means that it’s easier for honest CEOs to run an honest business, if the dishonest businesses are more effected negatively by leaks than honest businesses.
Well, there you go. You just disproved your own thesis statement.
Let's say you run a small, ethical powdered milk company. Your competition starts cutting their milk powder with something bad. Here's what happens, not necessarily in this order:
The public is informed of this danger, and starts to associate "powdered milk" with "poison" and your sales plummet, even though you aren't the company doing the adulterating.
In order to support the powdered milk manufacturing system, the government steps in and adds a slew of new regulations and paperwork, which drive your costs up for absolutely no reason, making your prices go up and your profits down. Higher prices result in lower sales, and you eventually go bankrupt.
The same company that thought nothing of putting bad stuff in the powdered milk has as little concern for the new regulations, saving itself a ton of money by ignoring them. Their company profits go up, because now the people think their powdered milk is protected by the force and backing of the US Government.
An unethical employee, seeing a chance to make a bundle of money with little effort, blackmails you by threatening to send fake information to Wikileaks, where you know nobody is going to bother fact checking before publishing it.
Yeah, so the world is made so much peachier by having a place that distributes stolen documents for their titillation and emotional value, with neither concern nor understanding of the harm that it will cause.
Looks like a good time to short some US banks. Technically this is public information.
Get a clue. The fact that someone stole information from somewhere and then gave it to Wikileaks no more makes it "public information" than it makes it "public domain". The latter is what Wikileaks is claiming about the cables that it is publishing.
I'm sorry, but having someone steal something and then give it to you doesn't make it "public domain" or "public information", it just makes you an accomplice to the theft.
If that was a way for material to become "public domain", then copyright would be a meaningless term. All someone has to do is steal a Mickey Mouse comic book, give it to Wikileaks, and Mickey Mouse becomes public domain. (Whether it should be by now is a different argument.)
See, the voters elect politicians who pass laws and ordinances banning competition in the ISP space by granting exclusive franchises.
Every franchise I have been involved with has been non-exclusive. It is lunacy for a municipality to grant exclusive franchises when the biggest hammer it has is the ability to grant a competitor access to the same market.
Even so, I have yet to see the "cable franchise" issue come up during any election anywhere, and since franchises tend to be decade-long affairs they just aren't on the radar when it comes to politicians and elections. I.e., no, nobody elects politicians because they are going to grant exclusive (or even non-exclusive) franchises to anyone.
The Iranian regime had no illusions about what high esteem they are held in Arab capitals, their lackies in Damascus not withstanding. This leak doesn't tell them anything they didn't already know,
Yes, and now all the citizens of Iran know it, too. What insults take place in private can be ignored if inconvenient. Insults made in public change the equation. A leader of a country who is insulted in public will need to take measures to save face that an insult in private would not require.
Given the repeated claims that Islamic terrorism is not state sponsored, it would seem disingenuous to ignore the threats created by releasing information that those states hold secretly to a public that often takes their own actions in response to insults.
It's all one big self-fulfilling prophecy in which nobody trusts each other and everybody is forced to keep a gun under the table.
And, of course, dumping all this diplomatic information out into the public will increase the level of trust between nations and help eliminate bad feelings and ill will worldwide.
Here's another glass of kool-aid. You seem a bit thirsty.
Can you give any example of someone who has been endangered by this?
Right. Because we can determine all the negative consequences of releasing diplomatic information in just the one or two days after it was released. As if common sense didn't apply to this matter at all.
As far as I can tell most of the leaks have been pretty tame,
I think finding out that the king of one of your neighbors has asked the Big Devil, Source of All Evil, to assist them by removing your blossoming nuclear capability just MIGHT cause one to hold a grudge, don't you? Especially when one is already publicly calling for the elimination of an "enemy" country and building a capacity to accomplish this, isn't it reasonable to think that maybe the list of targets might have changed a bit since the release?
I'm not saying it is not possible, but thus far I haven't heard of any example that comes even close.
Right. Because, of course, you have access to all diplomatic information and it has been, after all, two days since the release of this information. That proves that nothing bad will happen.
Or are you relying on Wikileaks to provide the information of all the bad things that happen because of their actions, and not try to push the responsibility off on someone else?
The conduct of diplomacy DEMANDS an ability to have frank and candid evaluations of the other parties, so that diplomats can judge and plan. Knowing what the other party's values are allows one to work with them, instead of simply taking pot-shots at trying to come up with a solution. There is no public value in knowing that one diplomat thinks another one is a "stuffed shirt" or that his motives are to avoid certain things, and those evaluations are worthless once the evaluee knows about them. In fact, they are harmful, because there is now an animosity between parties that has to be overcome before any further advances can be made.
Wikileaks went across the line this time. There will be reppercussions, but Wikileaks will not admit that anything they did caused harm. They'll point the finger at others while pretending to carry the high moral ground.
Suggesting that passengers would stand up against plane hijackers is absurd. The American public at-large already crapped it's pants and bent over for the federal government when ordered to do so. Why would those same people not cower in fear when confronted directly with any other threat?
Because the people on United 93 did not "cower in fear" when confronted with the knowledge that they weren't going to get a free trip to Cuba from the guys who were taking over the plane.
While some people on a flight may cower, even a majority of them, it only takes a small percentage of them doing something to stop the problem. There's a lot of people on a modern airplane, so even if just 10% of them do something, that's 30 or so.
Want a direct example? Just look at these bus passengers do nothing as an old man is assaulted by some bully:
1) the number of people on a bus is limited, and a random sample that small may not contain the right people to act, but mostly 2) one bully tormenting one old man is not going to bring death to every other passenger on the bus, so there is less self-interested motivation to do something about it.
No, need to do that. Just don't let them into the USA and have our allies arrest them if they ever leave Afghanistan.
So you think that being under "country arrest" is sufficient punishment for the people who were behind 9/11? I mean, a country like Afghanistan is SO small that being restricted to staying inside those borders is just like being in a jail cell, right? And preventing someone who doesn't want to travel to the US from traveling to the US is SUCH a serious punishment, I'm surprised it isn't classed as torture.
If deterrents don't work, then neither will checkpoints, because checkpoints are nothing more than deterrents. Send 5 people through, 4 get caught, and one gets a bomb on the plane. I know this. You know this. The TSA knows this. It's nothing more than security theater.
Number of people caught with bombs using the new scanners: 0
Number of people caught with bombs using the "grope-down": 0
This means one of two things: 1) they are perfect at detecting bombs using these techniques, but nobody is carrying any. 2) They are incompetent at it and unable to detect bombs with these techniques.
In either case, it is a waste of time and money and just an aggravation to everyone who travels. Please stop.
That doesn't prevent terrorism, it just puts the terrorists in uniform.
You do not understand. You must be re-educated. In a successful police state, the police do not create terror nor do they frighten anyone. In a successful police state, the people are calmed by the presence of the overarching protectorate and continue about their business unafraid.
It is only malcontents and miscreants like yourself, who obviously have something to hide from the protective services agents, that create the fear and discontent amongst your fellow citizens. Thus, you see, you are the creator of the terror, and you must be re-educated or eliminated.
The protective service agents are busy right now protecting air travelers, so please convey yourself to the closest protective agent office and make yourself available for the re-education process.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. That is all.
People employed by law agencies to investigate and prosecute child pornography are allowed to be in possession of the incriminating evidence.
Are they allowed to use their digital appendages while asking "did he touch you there like that?"
You can claim all you want that the simple desire to board an aircraft to travel in an efficient and cost-effective manner is a defacto abandonment of fourth amendment rights, but you'd have a hard time arguing that it's a defense against sexual assault.
Re:Wants US government to establish Official Relig
on
Bruce Schneier vs. the TSA
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I assume that you are intending this link to be proof that Ron Paul is calling for an Official Religion of the US Government. Too bad that you didn't actually read what you linked to, because it says nothing of the kind there.
What you linked to was a common-sense statement about how some people feel about being pushed so hard to be "tolerant" that they can no longer exercise their own religion because those who have none might be offended by it. He doesn't come close to calling for an "Official Religion", only a tolerance from those who are the loudest in calling for tolerance for their own beliefs. As in "OMG, someone has put a copy of the Ten Commandments somewhere they can be seen from 'public land'. "
The right wing wants a Nanny state too, it's just a different one. Or what do you call sanctioned groping of 3 year old girls?
-1 Flamebait, -1 being a moron.
The TSA is an arm of the executive branch of government, which is currently run by a Democrat, or commonly called "left winger". This isn't a right-wing/left-wing issue, however, so your gratuitous insult earned you the moron mod.
Honestly, I have no problem with individual theaters choosing to scramble cell phones as long as they inform their patrons. There are plenty of places that simply don't have cell phone service, and you can choose not to enter those places.
There is a significant difference between "don't have cell service" and "deliberate and willful interference with a licensed user of a frequency". If you want to paint your theater walls with aluminum-based airplane dope to create a Faraday cage for the victims, I mean viewers, of your movies, that's one thing. As soon as you install a transmitter deliberately emitting at frequencies you are not licensed to transmit at with the intent to interfere with the licensed user, that's a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? So if you go to bed with a woman, rock her world before you go to sleep, and when you wake up she says "no", you think you can force her to have sex with you because she said yes last night and "can't wake up the next day and say no"?
Stop being stupid. Saying "no" doesn't mean you suddenly weren't permitted to do what was already done, it means you cannot continue. If you continue after being told 'no', it's called 'rape'. What you did was with consent; what you are now doing is not.
Ok. Simple. Remember that for packets to get BACK to you from any server outside your own home network, you must have a routable address visible to the world. So, even though your home network is in the 10.0.0.0 net, your visible presence on the net is completely routable.
Create a cron job that makes some loggable contact with your system at work from home, and you now have logged that visible, routable home address. Configure your home router to pass the port for whatever service you want to access from work to the system that can deal with it at home. Connect to that address using that port.
I do this on a daily basis, from work to a home server behind Comcast.
If this is insufficient for you, then configure an SSH tunnel from your home system to one at work, forwarding a port from the home system to the one at work. I do this daily, as well. I have a PeeCee with PuTTY forwarding the VNC port on that PeeCee out to a system at work. I run my local VNC server to connect to my local host on the local port, and I'm in control of that PC. I have two or three other systems around the world behind local firewalls/NAT boxes that also create SSH tunnels to a system at work. I SSH from my work system to localhost at the port I've designated for the tunnel to appear on, and bingo, I'm talking to the remote system.
No, it's not an ideal way of doing things, but it's better than crying and complaining that I can't do what I need to do because those nasty people are running a firewall/NAT box.
Well, I'd hazard to guess that 95% of the home users ARE only clients. Maybe 99%.
A lot of the rest of us get along pretty well with putting our servers behind a router/NAT that lets us define which ports get forwarded to which systems behind the router, thus adding "firewall" as a feature.
The only drawback is when you are assigned an address via DHCP, and that's not a complete kill. I've got several systems around the planet that are behind a NAT/firewall and it is only an inconvenience, not a fatal problem.
I seem to recall a media kerfluffle a while back where Julian was charged with rape -- before the "cablegate" and impending "real bad bank and pharma and whatever" releases. Hard to claim something that started before the release of classified documents was caused by that release, isn't it?
I don't understand - the condom broke in the middle so she asked him to stop, he didn't - and that's rape?
At what point does a woman lose the right to say "no" and have it mean something? I mean, in your world, once she lets you bang her she's lost the right to say no forever? Or can she change her mind? Yes, even in the middle of the act. Especially when your only form of contraception is suddenly broken and she's facing the possibility of a pregnancy if you don't stop. How about if it is only that you start screaming out someone else's name in your heat of passion, killing hers?
Now, we do need to cut Obama a little slack on this, since he was there only two years prior to becoming President Obama, and he spent most of those two years campaigning for President instead of paying attention to the legislative duties the people of Illinois elected him to. But he had a chance to do something before the bottom fell out and joined his party line in doing nothing.
Then it is useless to continue this discussion. If you can't see a difference between "can do no wrong" and "not perfect", then we have no common ground upon which communications could profit.
Mainly because such a belief inevitably leads to exactly the same consequences - ruthless arrogance.
Yes, it is clear that there is no common ground, nay, not even a common language, with which we can converse.
Incorrect.
There are functions of government that demand secrecy -- a lack of this "transparency" you glibly refer to. Defense is just one area. Diplomacy another. Corporations also require some ability at opaqueness. Product development cycles and next generation planning for releases are just two.
Wikileaks, on the other hand, exists to provide accurate and corroborated data to the public. At least, it is supposed to exist for that reason. Publishing things that make one side look bad while sitting on information that would exonerate it is unethical. That process needs to be transparent.
The kind of crap where someone at company A sends a memo around saying "what about doing this?", and a quick response says "you can't do that", where Wikileaks reports the "what about" but not the "no" memo, is patently dishonest. "Company A plans to ..." is the headline, when the truth is nothing even remotely like that.
No, I will not accept it on its face that "that's exactly what it is going to be", because I've seen the other stuff from Wikileaks and know they lie.
I need go no further than their main page for "cablegate", where they claim that the information is "public domain" -- and yet they clearly understand that some of it is classified and thus clearly NOT public domain.
It may be, IN THEIR OPINION, about "massive fraud", but that's just their opinion, and they've shown nothing but bias in the material from them I've seen. If there's massive fraud and corruption, give the material to the justice department so they can do their job, not spew random memos about hoping something sticks.
If you are one of the people who goes "OMG, someone from the state department met with someone from Kuwait, and someone from Kuwait said, OMG, they were concerned about Iran's growing nuclear capability, and OMG that proves there's such massive corruption and espionage and stuff going on in the US", well, that's just sad. That's the content of one of the incredibly damaging cables Wikileaks is hyping as proof of a massive coverup of something. Yawn.
No. It is the belief that the US is better than other countries. Not perfect, just better.
The rest of your rant is based on misinformation, so I will refrain from countering it point by point.
Well, there you go. You just disproved your own thesis statement.
Let's say you run a small, ethical powdered milk company. Your competition starts cutting their milk powder with something bad. Here's what happens, not necessarily in this order:
Yeah, so the world is made so much peachier by having a place that distributes stolen documents for their titillation and emotional value, with neither concern nor understanding of the harm that it will cause.
Get a clue. The fact that someone stole information from somewhere and then gave it to Wikileaks no more makes it "public information" than it makes it "public domain". The latter is what Wikileaks is claiming about the cables that it is publishing.
I'm sorry, but having someone steal something and then give it to you doesn't make it "public domain" or "public information", it just makes you an accomplice to the theft.
If that was a way for material to become "public domain", then copyright would be a meaningless term. All someone has to do is steal a Mickey Mouse comic book, give it to Wikileaks, and Mickey Mouse becomes public domain. (Whether it should be by now is a different argument.)
Every franchise I have been involved with has been non-exclusive. It is lunacy for a municipality to grant exclusive franchises when the biggest hammer it has is the ability to grant a competitor access to the same market.
Even so, I have yet to see the "cable franchise" issue come up during any election anywhere, and since franchises tend to be decade-long affairs they just aren't on the radar when it comes to politicians and elections. I.e., no, nobody elects politicians because they are going to grant exclusive (or even non-exclusive) franchises to anyone.
My mother runs a porn store on the second floor of the local DHS building, you insensitive clod.
Or "in Russia, going to porn store results in visit to mother."
Whatever.
Yes, and now all the citizens of Iran know it, too. What insults take place in private can be ignored if inconvenient. Insults made in public change the equation. A leader of a country who is insulted in public will need to take measures to save face that an insult in private would not require.
Given the repeated claims that Islamic terrorism is not state sponsored, it would seem disingenuous to ignore the threats created by releasing information that those states hold secretly to a public that often takes their own actions in response to insults.
And, of course, dumping all this diplomatic information out into the public will increase the level of trust between nations and help eliminate bad feelings and ill will worldwide.
Here's another glass of kool-aid. You seem a bit thirsty.
Right. Because we can determine all the negative consequences of releasing diplomatic information in just the one or two days after it was released. As if common sense didn't apply to this matter at all.
As far as I can tell most of the leaks have been pretty tame,
I think finding out that the king of one of your neighbors has asked the Big Devil, Source of All Evil, to assist them by removing your blossoming nuclear capability just MIGHT cause one to hold a grudge, don't you? Especially when one is already publicly calling for the elimination of an "enemy" country and building a capacity to accomplish this, isn't it reasonable to think that maybe the list of targets might have changed a bit since the release?
I'm not saying it is not possible, but thus far I haven't heard of any example that comes even close.
Right. Because, of course, you have access to all diplomatic information and it has been, after all, two days since the release of this information. That proves that nothing bad will happen.
Or are you relying on Wikileaks to provide the information of all the bad things that happen because of their actions, and not try to push the responsibility off on someone else?
The conduct of diplomacy DEMANDS an ability to have frank and candid evaluations of the other parties, so that diplomats can judge and plan. Knowing what the other party's values are allows one to work with them, instead of simply taking pot-shots at trying to come up with a solution. There is no public value in knowing that one diplomat thinks another one is a "stuffed shirt" or that his motives are to avoid certain things, and those evaluations are worthless once the evaluee knows about them. In fact, they are harmful, because there is now an animosity between parties that has to be overcome before any further advances can be made.
Wikileaks went across the line this time. There will be reppercussions, but Wikileaks will not admit that anything they did caused harm. They'll point the finger at others while pretending to carry the high moral ground.
Because the people on United 93 did not "cower in fear" when confronted with the knowledge that they weren't going to get a free trip to Cuba from the guys who were taking over the plane.
While some people on a flight may cower, even a majority of them, it only takes a small percentage of them doing something to stop the problem. There's a lot of people on a modern airplane, so even if just 10% of them do something, that's 30 or so.
Want a direct example? Just look at these bus passengers do nothing as an old man is assaulted by some bully:
1) the number of people on a bus is limited, and a random sample that small may not contain the right people to act, but mostly 2) one bully tormenting one old man is not going to bring death to every other passenger on the bus, so there is less self-interested motivation to do something about it.
So you think that being under "country arrest" is sufficient punishment for the people who were behind 9/11? I mean, a country like Afghanistan is SO small that being restricted to staying inside those borders is just like being in a jail cell, right? And preventing someone who doesn't want to travel to the US from traveling to the US is SUCH a serious punishment, I'm surprised it isn't classed as torture.
Number of people caught with bombs using the new scanners: 0
Number of people caught with bombs using the "grope-down": 0
This means one of two things: 1) they are perfect at detecting bombs using these techniques, but nobody is carrying any. 2) They are incompetent at it and unable to detect bombs with these techniques.
In either case, it is a waste of time and money and just an aggravation to everyone who travels. Please stop.
You do not understand. You must be re-educated. In a successful police state, the police do not create terror nor do they frighten anyone. In a successful police state, the people are calmed by the presence of the overarching protectorate and continue about their business unafraid.
It is only malcontents and miscreants like yourself, who obviously have something to hide from the protective services agents, that create the fear and discontent amongst your fellow citizens. Thus, you see, you are the creator of the terror, and you must be re-educated or eliminated.
The protective service agents are busy right now protecting air travelers, so please convey yourself to the closest protective agent office and make yourself available for the re-education process.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. That is all.
Are they allowed to use their digital appendages while asking "did he touch you there like that?"
You can claim all you want that the simple desire to board an aircraft to travel in an efficient and cost-effective manner is a defacto abandonment of fourth amendment rights, but you'd have a hard time arguing that it's a defense against sexual assault.
What you linked to was a common-sense statement about how some people feel about being pushed so hard to be "tolerant" that they can no longer exercise their own religion because those who have none might be offended by it. He doesn't come close to calling for an "Official Religion", only a tolerance from those who are the loudest in calling for tolerance for their own beliefs. As in "OMG, someone has put a copy of the Ten Commandments somewhere they can be seen from 'public land'. "
-1 Flamebait, -1 being a moron.
The TSA is an arm of the executive branch of government, which is currently run by a Democrat, or commonly called "left winger". This isn't a right-wing/left-wing issue, however, so your gratuitous insult earned you the moron mod.
There is a significant difference between "don't have cell service" and "deliberate and willful interference with a licensed user of a frequency". If you want to paint your theater walls with aluminum-based airplane dope to create a Faraday cage for the victims, I mean viewers, of your movies, that's one thing. As soon as you install a transmitter deliberately emitting at frequencies you are not licensed to transmit at with the intent to interfere with the licensed user, that's a crime.
My kingdom for a handful of mod points...