I see your link and raise you one of my own. No, really -- it's a link of my own; please forgive the shameless plug to my blog, but the full argument is a little too lengthy to repeat here. I will summarize it, however, by saying that the Yemeni bomb plot was not stopped by nudie-scoping or groping anyone -- it was foiled by good, old-fashioned police work. In fact, I rather suspect that in the unlikely event that a terrorist were somehow to be detected by TSA, the terrorist would not merely surrender his weapon(s) the way honest citizens who inadvertently left a prohibited item in their luggage do, but would instead attack the people milling around at the security checkpoint.
All TSA has accomplished is to move the danger point from the airliner to the airport. That, IMHO, is certainly not worth the...what? $2 billion?...that we've spent on airport (in)security.
SirGarlon, or myself for that matter, is but a tiny subset of "the flying public." Just as people on/. do not all hold the same opinions on all topics, yet nevertheless comprise a group known as "/. users" so can SirGarlon and I have opinions that others in the group known as "the flying public" do not share. To wit, most of them seem to value a vacation by air more than they value liberty.
Can we please stop this left-vs-right crap? Yes, TSA came into existence under GWB. However, if this was strictly a Republican issue, why has TSA gotten even worse since we elected Mr. Hope-and-Change almost four years ago?
Anyone still blaming "those evil (Republicans|Democrats)" has clearly NOT been paying attention.
Yes, you are correct: correlation != causation, and therefore, no, we don't know that the MW scanner killed her insulin pump. However, we can't test the theory because TSA, in their infinite wisdom, refuses to allow their machines to be tested.
As far as the "more radiation on the plane than in the scanner" hogwash, that is a more-or-less apples to apples comparison with the X-ray scanner -- not the MW scanner. First, what are the power levels at which the X-ray scanners and MW scanners operate? Are they comparable? I don't know, and I suspect neither does the commenter from the TFA. Therefore, that argument is invalid without more information. Second, I'm not a physicist, but my understanding is that X-rays have a lot more in common with cosmic rays (what you are exposed to in an airplane) than either of those forms of radiation have in common with microwaves (what she was actually exposed to). Therefore, saying that microwaves are safe for insulin pumps because the cosmic rays at altitude don't affect the insulin pump is a lot like saying UV-B is safe for skin because visible light doesn't cause either skin cancer or sunburn. They operate at different wavelengths, thus they have different effects.
You realize that radiated energy decreases with the square of distance, right? So while the local PD's radar guns might emit a much greater amount of radiation at the antenna, what is the strength of the signal you receive in your car when a cop is clocking you? Also, radar guns are typically located on the bumper of police cars, at least in my area, so how much microwave energy is reaching you through your windshield, and how much is being reflected back by the body of your car? Now, where is the insulin pump located? If you have it on your head, then the windshield might be all that's between the pump and the antenna. However, if it's located closer to the waist, I'd suspect it will be largely shielded by your car.
No, it's just that some people are too stubborn to let facts get in the way of their opinions. After all, this is being done to stop the terrorists. You want to stop the terrorists, don't you, Citizen?
Privatisation of public services is always a bad idea. It either costs more, or is more user hostile, or both.
Ummm...no, it's not -- at least, not always. I provided two examples above where the service I received through a private enterprise was head and shoulders above the service I received through a public vendor. I don't know where you live -- I'd guess England, but I don't know -- and in your country, perhaps your medical care is as good as what we get here in the States. Honestly, even from privatized medicine, the quality can vary widely. But I still maintain that while private health care may be more expensive, *in my experience* it is frequently considerably better quality than what you get from a publicly-funded provider. However, my sister-in-law visited Italy a few years back, and her story is that in Italy, you can choose public or privately funded medical care. Those who can afford it, she told me (including her -- she got sick while there) unanimously choose the private health care. Sure, it's expensive...but according to the locals she talked to, there's no question that it's better than the public health care. IIRC, she went to a public clinic first and walked out because it was so bad.
Be very careful using words like "always" or "never." They often take a good point and make it completely false.
What would the USA look like today if Ben Franklin, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, etc., etc. had moved somewhere else? "Be the change you want to see."
'Kay, I'll give you a couple of examples, then. I grew up an Air Force brat, meaning the Air Force provided my medical care. At 21, I got my first taste of a privatized hospital. No comparison -- doctors and nurses actually had a decent bedside manner, the lab techs who drew my blood could actually, you know, *find* my veins (not that mine were terribly hard to find, but that never stopped the military phlebotomists from fishing for the vein more often than not). More expensive? Yeah, probably...but then again, taxes paid for medical care while seeing the AF docs, so I couldn't tell you for sure. User hostile? Not a chance.
Ditto for the year we had my daughter in private school. Her teachers, the administration, and pretty much everyone else in the private school bent over backwards to be helpful, and my daughter positively loved going to school. Again, yeah, it was expensive, but again, what is the cost per student in public school? I can't tell you, because it's lumped into my taxes, along with the cost for numerous other services. Consequently, I can't accurately show the cost of private vs. public, because the cost of public school is hidden from me. Actually, to be more accurate, I don't have to compare the cost of public vs. private schools, because I was bearing the cost of public school even while my daughter was attending private school.
One last argument to throw your way: we are spending BILLIONS per year on security theater right now, much of it on technology (like the explosive detecting puffer machines) that was rolled out, then scrapped because it didn't work. I have worked in private industry since 1996, and while some of the companies I have worked for have been more wasteful than others, I have yet to see a company that can afford to throw money away the same way the government does. A company that had the track record of TSA would be bankrupt by now; the government sends you a bill every April 15th and threatens to throw you in jail and/or confiscate your property if you don't pay. If the government needs more income, it raises your taxes, and you don't get the option of deciding not to "buy" government's services next year if the taxes get to high (unless you emmigrate, and that leads to other problems).
IME, government, being essentially both a monopoly and having the ability to coerce payment from you, has far less incentive to be either cost-effective or to display good customer service, is therefore is almost always more expensive and less customer friendly. YMMV.
After all, there's nothing that government does that private industry can't do worse, at higher cost.
Do you honestly believe that? Because in my experience it has almost always -- not quite always, but almost -- been the exact opposite: there is nothing private enterprise can do that government can't do worse, at higher cost.
I'm already not flying anywhere. And all the loons who screamed, "If you don't like it, don't fly!!!" have now been shown to be remarkably short-sighted as TSA/VIPR has expanded to train stations, bus stations and even in a couple of cases, roadways (you honestly couldn't see that coming?!?!). shiftless is right -- kick those clowns in TSA out.
I haven't followed the aircraft fuels issue all that closely for the last couple of years as I've been shifting my extra-curricular time away from aviation and towards motorcycling (a lot less regulation, hassle and expense), so this might be a bit dated, but the last time I checked, the push for aircraft engines was away from gasoline entirely and towards diesel engines. Diesels solve a number of problems in addition to the leaded fuel problem.
I mean, come on, you think that the FBI is that savvy? You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI?
Google "covert channels."
You can't know what was done to the server while it was gone. Ergo, you cannot trust that server again.
While I agree that most likely all the FBI did is image the drive so they could look for information on where the e-mails originated, you can't know that. Yes, even a marginally competent network admin could look for unusual traffic to unusual domains/IP addresses, but if you are dealing with a server used by hundreds of strangers (even if they are customers), it can get pretty difficult to separate the signal from the noise. Then there are the covert channels I referenced earlier. It can be impossible to ferret those out without inside information because literally ANYTHING can be a carrier for information. And quite frankly, while I often question my government's judgment and ethics, I sincerely hope that their cryptography and security experts are more knowledgeable in those fields than I am, considering the information (nuclear and biological weapons tech, for example) that they are tasked with protecting.
True, but since the goal of language is to facilitate communication, you would be wise to understand how most other people use the word. Face it, who is Joe Consumer going to listen to -- you, or CNN? If that is how the word is being portrayed in the media, you and I have the proverbial snowball's chance of changing the public's perception of that word.
...why should we come up with a new term because they are computer illiterate.
Because you don't want the computer illiterate to confuse you with someone who is doing something illegal?
Language changes; you can change with it, or you can be frustrated all the time because people misunderstand the term you choose to use to describe yourself.
I was about to mention 2600, as well. WTF? They drop Linux Format because they published an article that tells you how to test your web server's security, but they still sell 2600?
Slashdot Mirror
I see your link and raise you one of my own. No, really -- it's a link of my own; please forgive the shameless plug to my blog, but the full argument is a little too lengthy to repeat here. I will summarize it, however, by saying that the Yemeni bomb plot was not stopped by nudie-scoping or groping anyone -- it was foiled by good, old-fashioned police work. In fact, I rather suspect that in the unlikely event that a terrorist were somehow to be detected by TSA, the terrorist would not merely surrender his weapon(s) the way honest citizens who inadvertently left a prohibited item in their luggage do, but would instead attack the people milling around at the security checkpoint.
All TSA has accomplished is to move the danger point from the airliner to the airport. That, IMHO, is certainly not worth the...what? $2 billion?...that we've spent on airport (in)security.
Logic FAIL.
/. do not all hold the same opinions on all topics, yet nevertheless comprise a group known as "/. users" so can SirGarlon and I have opinions that others in the group known as "the flying public" do not share. To wit, most of them seem to value a vacation by air more than they value liberty.
SirGarlon, or myself for that matter, is but a tiny subset of "the flying public." Just as people on
Can we please stop this left-vs-right crap? Yes, TSA came into existence under GWB. However, if this was strictly a Republican issue, why has TSA gotten even worse since we elected Mr. Hope-and-Change almost four years ago?
Anyone still blaming "those evil (Republicans|Democrats)" has clearly NOT been paying attention.
Yes, you are correct: correlation != causation, and therefore, no, we don't know that the MW scanner killed her insulin pump. However, we can't test the theory because TSA, in their infinite wisdom, refuses to allow their machines to be tested.
As far as the "more radiation on the plane than in the scanner" hogwash, that is a more-or-less apples to apples comparison with the X-ray scanner -- not the MW scanner. First, what are the power levels at which the X-ray scanners and MW scanners operate? Are they comparable? I don't know, and I suspect neither does the commenter from the TFA. Therefore, that argument is invalid without more information. Second, I'm not a physicist, but my understanding is that X-rays have a lot more in common with cosmic rays (what you are exposed to in an airplane) than either of those forms of radiation have in common with microwaves (what she was actually exposed to). Therefore, saying that microwaves are safe for insulin pumps because the cosmic rays at altitude don't affect the insulin pump is a lot like saying UV-B is safe for skin because visible light doesn't cause either skin cancer or sunburn. They operate at different wavelengths, thus they have different effects.
You, sir, are my new hero. Well played!
You realize that radiated energy decreases with the square of distance, right? So while the local PD's radar guns might emit a much greater amount of radiation at the antenna, what is the strength of the signal you receive in your car when a cop is clocking you? Also, radar guns are typically located on the bumper of police cars, at least in my area, so how much microwave energy is reaching you through your windshield, and how much is being reflected back by the body of your car? Now, where is the insulin pump located? If you have it on your head, then the windshield might be all that's between the pump and the antenna. However, if it's located closer to the waist, I'd suspect it will be largely shielded by your car.
No, it's just that some people are too stubborn to let facts get in the way of their opinions. After all, this is being done to stop the terrorists. You want to stop the terrorists, don't you, Citizen?
Sigh...
Privatisation of public services is always a bad idea. It either costs more, or is more user hostile, or both.
Ummm...no, it's not -- at least, not always. I provided two examples above where the service I received through a private enterprise was head and shoulders above the service I received through a public vendor. I don't know where you live -- I'd guess England, but I don't know -- and in your country, perhaps your medical care is as good as what we get here in the States. Honestly, even from privatized medicine, the quality can vary widely. But I still maintain that while private health care may be more expensive, *in my experience* it is frequently considerably better quality than what you get from a publicly-funded provider. However, my sister-in-law visited Italy a few years back, and her story is that in Italy, you can choose public or privately funded medical care. Those who can afford it, she told me (including her -- she got sick while there) unanimously choose the private health care. Sure, it's expensive...but according to the locals she talked to, there's no question that it's better than the public health care. IIRC, she went to a public clinic first and walked out because it was so bad.
Be very careful using words like "always" or "never." They often take a good point and make it completely false.
Only read TFS, but isn't the idea that they would have a warrant?
Warrants are so last century. NSL's, NSA wiretapping...does anybody *really* bother with a warrant anymore?
It'll be Siberia or Australia, then. I don't want them up here in Alaska with me.
:thumb_up:
What would the USA look like today if Ben Franklin, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, etc., etc. had moved somewhere else? "Be the change you want to see."
Ask and you shall receive. I'm sure there are more, but that's what I've got off the top of my head.
;)
Can you provide counter-examples? 'Cause like you said, I can't think of any, but maybe you can
'Kay, I'll give you a couple of examples, then. I grew up an Air Force brat, meaning the Air Force provided my medical care. At 21, I got my first taste of a privatized hospital. No comparison -- doctors and nurses actually had a decent bedside manner, the lab techs who drew my blood could actually, you know, *find* my veins (not that mine were terribly hard to find, but that never stopped the military phlebotomists from fishing for the vein more often than not). More expensive? Yeah, probably...but then again, taxes paid for medical care while seeing the AF docs, so I couldn't tell you for sure. User hostile? Not a chance.
Ditto for the year we had my daughter in private school. Her teachers, the administration, and pretty much everyone else in the private school bent over backwards to be helpful, and my daughter positively loved going to school. Again, yeah, it was expensive, but again, what is the cost per student in public school? I can't tell you, because it's lumped into my taxes, along with the cost for numerous other services. Consequently, I can't accurately show the cost of private vs. public, because the cost of public school is hidden from me. Actually, to be more accurate, I don't have to compare the cost of public vs. private schools, because I was bearing the cost of public school even while my daughter was attending private school.
One last argument to throw your way: we are spending BILLIONS per year on security theater right now, much of it on technology (like the explosive detecting puffer machines) that was rolled out, then scrapped because it didn't work. I have worked in private industry since 1996, and while some of the companies I have worked for have been more wasteful than others, I have yet to see a company that can afford to throw money away the same way the government does. A company that had the track record of TSA would be bankrupt by now; the government sends you a bill every April 15th and threatens to throw you in jail and/or confiscate your property if you don't pay. If the government needs more income, it raises your taxes, and you don't get the option of deciding not to "buy" government's services next year if the taxes get to high (unless you emmigrate, and that leads to other problems).
IME, government, being essentially both a monopoly and having the ability to coerce payment from you, has far less incentive to be either cost-effective or to display good customer service, is therefore is almost always more expensive and less customer friendly. YMMV.
After all, there's nothing that government does that private industry can't do worse, at higher cost.
Do you honestly believe that? Because in my experience it has almost always -- not quite always, but almost -- been the exact opposite: there is nothing private enterprise can do that government can't do worse, at higher cost.
I'm already not flying anywhere. And all the loons who screamed, "If you don't like it, don't fly!!!" have now been shown to be remarkably short-sighted as TSA/VIPR has expanded to train stations, bus stations and even in a couple of cases, roadways (you honestly couldn't see that coming?!?!). shiftless is right -- kick those clowns in TSA out.
I haven't followed the aircraft fuels issue all that closely for the last couple of years as I've been shifting my extra-curricular time away from aviation and towards motorcycling (a lot less regulation, hassle and expense), so this might be a bit dated, but the last time I checked, the push for aircraft engines was away from gasoline entirely and towards diesel engines. Diesels solve a number of problems in addition to the leaded fuel problem.
Ooh, and we could then add "hacker#" a few years later! ;)
It's more like, "Pick your battles." I'm okay if you choose to pick different battles than I do, however.
I mean, come on, you think that the FBI is that savvy? You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI?
Google "covert channels."
You can't know what was done to the server while it was gone. Ergo, you cannot trust that server again.
While I agree that most likely all the FBI did is image the drive so they could look for information on where the e-mails originated, you can't know that. Yes, even a marginally competent network admin could look for unusual traffic to unusual domains/IP addresses, but if you are dealing with a server used by hundreds of strangers (even if they are customers), it can get pretty difficult to separate the signal from the noise. Then there are the covert channels I referenced earlier. It can be impossible to ferret those out without inside information because literally ANYTHING can be a carrier for information. And quite frankly, while I often question my government's judgment and ethics, I sincerely hope that their cryptography and security experts are more knowledgeable in those fields than I am, considering the information (nuclear and biological weapons tech, for example) that they are tasked with protecting.
What we have here is, "he said, she said."
But hey, don't post any supportive arguments or citations for your claims, we'll just take your word for it.
History fail.
That wasn't the last time the U.S. and the British Empire fought.
True, but since the goal of language is to facilitate communication, you would be wise to understand how most other people use the word. Face it, who is Joe Consumer going to listen to -- you, or CNN? If that is how the word is being portrayed in the media, you and I have the proverbial snowball's chance of changing the public's perception of that word.
...why should we come up with a new term because they are computer illiterate.
Because you don't want the computer illiterate to confuse you with someone who is doing something illegal?
Language changes; you can change with it, or you can be frustrated all the time because people misunderstand the term you choose to use to describe yourself.
I was about to mention 2600, as well. WTF? They drop Linux Format because they published an article that tells you how to test your web server's security, but they still sell 2600?