Unfortunately, TSA has expanded out of airports and into train stations and highways. How long will it be before apologists are saying, "Well, if you don't like TSA, you don't have to leave your house. Going out in public is voluntary." Think it won't ever happen here? That's what I thought about body scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" two years ago.
Congress does not have the right to pass a law that violates the Constitution, unless they first pass an amendment nullifying the part of the Constitution that they don't like. However, in the event that Congress does pass such a law, then citizens must force the issue in court, which generally requires civil disobedience, getting arrested for breaking the law, and then finally arguing the point before a judge. Alternatively, if you feel that your rights have been violated by an illegal law, you may file a civil suit rather taking the civil disobedience route. As I understand, there are various advantages to each choice, but since IANAL, I am not going to go there.
All of this begs one question: Is the law establishing TSA and allowing the grope-n-scope a violation of the Constitution? Well...technically, to get an accurate, authoritative answer to that question, someone must first challenge that law in court. However, there are those, including EPIC, ACLU and others, who think so. You might consider reading the 4th Amendment yourself to form your own opinion. In my opinion, for however much or however little, that's worth, yes, TSA is blatantly violating the 4th Amendment, and the fact that the entire nation isn't marching to D.C. with pitchforks and torches quite honestly boggles my mind. But then again, I'm a bit of an idealist.
I could have sworn that, in previous cases (not involving a US Senator), people were told that, if the scan found something odd, you could either accept the pat-down or be arrested...I wonder what would happen if a non-Congressfolk tried doing exactly what Rand Paul did. Would they be arrested for refusing the pat down? Would they be kicked out of the airport with a police escort?
YMMV. IIRC, TSA dropped charges against Tyner, but I don't believe the woman in Austin, TX was quite as lucky. To date, there are no politicians who have refused to allow themselves to be molested, excuse me, I mean "groped", err..."searched"...by TSA who have even had charges filed against them, much less who have actually been prosecuted. I guess the quote is true: "You know the score, Deckard. If you ain't cop, you're little people."
We used to be "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave." WTF ever happened to that notion? Or was it just a cool line in a song some dude wrote two hundred years ago, but we never really believed it?
Harsh treatment? Something weird came up on the scanner.
Do we know that? I mean truly, for certain, beyond any doubt? TSA claims that it's scanners can't store or transmit images (okay, we know that's not strictly true, but for the sake of argument...) so it's not like anyone can contest the body scanner results.
In other words, some TSA guy claims that there was an aberration on the scan result, and therefore they needed to grope^Wfrisk Sen. Paul to clear him through security. Surely there was no intent to harass him, right? Right? Guys? Anyone?
Don't think for a second that their jobs are at risk as long as they followed procedure. If they did deviate, however, they will be fired and hung out to dry.
You'd think so...but you'd be wrong. Moral of the story: it sucks to be the little guy. No matter what you do, you're still screwed.
Perhaps if you removed your head from your anus, you'd already be aware of some of the stories I linked to above, instead of (erroneously) arguing that there is no evidence that such things are happening?
We don't have a right to fly in commercial aircraft without getting our freak on with TSA only because we have allowed the government to get away with it. The 4th Amendment says the government may not perform an "unreasonable" search without a court approving it, and even in that case the search is for specific things on specific persons in specific locations -- it does NOT apply to "everything every traveler brings to any airport anywhere in the nation -- or even overseas, if the airliner is traveling to the U.S.". Every court in the country would throw out a request for a warrant that was that broad. You can perhaps make the point that a metal detector is not "unreasonable"...but if you seriously think that the crap that's been happening in airports for the last 14 months is "reasonable", well, I hope you've enjoyed the Kool-Aid.
The fact that he would rather leave and rebook his flight than take a pat down is a bit weird.
Are you serious?!?! It's no wonder our country is in such sad shape, if this mindset is any reflection of the attitudes of the American people. I don't even know where to start dissecting this comment, but I'll give it a shot, anyway.
First, when faced with a choice of believing that a senator is doing something illegal or that the TSA is attempting to harass one of the few critics who actually has any kind of power over the agency, you side with TSA? Second, when someone actually shows some backbone and tells the TSA where it can shove it's (illegal) pat-downs, you think it's weird that he takes a moral high ground? Third, are you truly so focused on your goals that you are willing to give up the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to achieve them -- even if that goal is simply arriving at your intended destination at your intended arrival time, rather than taking a longer route rather than be a good sheep as you pass through a TSA check point?
I acknowledge the possibility that you consider the pat-downs less onerous and less of a violation of civil rights than I do. And if that's the case, then it may truly seem like a simple choice between a pat-down and rebooking your flight for a later time. However, not all of us feel that way. Apparently Sen. Paul believes more like me than like you (possibly) do. That does not, however, suggest that Sen. Paul actually had anything to hide, nor does it suggest that he was up to anything weirder (i.e., "more suspicious") than taking a stand for something he obviously believes in.
I also acknowledge that trying to decide whether a senator or the TSA is less corrupt is rather like arguing whether a pirhana or a tiger shark is more voracious. However, despite the fact that I think that most politicians are at least somewhat corrupt, I rather doubt that any of them are likely to smuggle weapons through an airport checkpoint so that they can hijack or blow up an airplane.
While there is a part of me that disagrees with the way you flippantly blew off the radiation concern, there is another part of me that genuinely enjoyed the wit you displayed while doing so. Well done indeed, sir!
I've heard that, but honestly, I'm more than just a bit skeptical of that claim. IMHO, the *MAJOR* factor in Linux never gaining any meaningful traction in the home user market is because most PCs ship with Windows already installed. If I'm Joe User, I don't know the difference between Linux and Windows. Consequently, if my PC comes with Windows installed, that's probably the OS I am going to use because 1) I don't know that another choice even exists, 2) I don't know why I might want a different OS, 3) I don't know how to remove the OS that's already installed even if I *did* want another OS, and finally, 4) I wouldn't know how to install an alternative OS. If what shipped with the PC works good enough*, why would the average user go to the effort of installing another OS (not to mention the effort of learning how to use that alternative OS)?
*Yes, I'm using that term loosely. I may prefer Linux to Windows (and I do), but the average user will look at it like this: "Can I get on-line with Windows? Can I check my e-mail, stocks and bank account on Windows? Can I buy things on Amazon? Then why is Linux/Mac/$randomOS better than Windows?" If it meets those requirements, then Windows is "good enough" and honestly, that's not an entirely unreasonable definition.
Gotta disagree with you, a bit. I've got a 7" tablet, a Dell Streak 7 that I won in a raffle, and I've found it to be pretty useful. It's probably not useful enough that I would have shelled out Dell's $400 asking price for it, but hey, it was free, and at that price, I'm satisfied:) At any rate, what I've found is that the Streak 7 is great to throw in a backpack or the saddlebags on my motorcycle -- basically, any time I wouldn't bother to drag a laptop around.
Microsoft didn't force you to buy Windows either...
That point is somewhat debatable. It wasn't all that long ago that it was well-night impossible to buy (as opposed to "build") a PC without Windows, unless you ponied up a lot of extra $$$ for a Mac.
Good analysis, and I pretty much agree with your overall points. There's a *lot* of data that a drone has to send back to the operator (that's kind of the point of a drone, no?) However:
<rant>...The average/. crowd these days seem to be quite egotistical to assume that they could "do it better". </rant>
Maybe that's because some of the people on/. have done it? I'm not claiming that an Arducopter or AR Drone Parrot is "better*" than a Global Hawk, but the fact is that there are indeed amateurs building drones that are more sophisticated than perhaps most not involved in the hobby suspect.
*"Better" is an ambiguous term, and before entering into a debate about whether one device is "better" than another, it is necessary to define the design requirements. For example, if I need a drone that can take off and land on my driveway, fly at a few hundred feet AGL in a residential neighborhood and operate on less than $1000 per year, then yeah, something I build at home myself is probably "better" than a Global Hawk. However, if I am entering into a military conflict with a well-armed, well-trained enemy with sophisticated ELINT capabilities, then my homebuilt drone is probably not the best choice.
"The downside — they're bandwidth hogs: a single Global Hawk drone requires 500 megabytes per second worth of bandwidth, the report finds, which is 500 percent of the total bandwidth of the entire U.S. military used during the 1991 Gulf War."
500%? Pshaw! By that measure, I must be a bandwidth hog, too. In 1991, I was dialing up to the local university's Vax mainframe on a 300 baud modem. Today I have a 10Mb cable modem. That's a bandwidth increase of (roughly) 3,300,000% in the same time frame!
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try, but no. A dog "alerting" is considered "reasonable cause".
No.
If a cop is willing to break the law to get a conviction, is he also willing to fabricate evidence to obtain a conviction? How do you know?
Unfortunately, TSA has expanded out of airports and into train stations and highways. How long will it be before apologists are saying, "Well, if you don't like TSA, you don't have to leave your house. Going out in public is voluntary." Think it won't ever happen here? That's what I thought about body scanners and "enhanced pat-downs" two years ago.
Congratulations, you fail Civics 101.
Congress does not have the right to pass a law that violates the Constitution, unless they first pass an amendment nullifying the part of the Constitution that they don't like. However, in the event that Congress does pass such a law, then citizens must force the issue in court, which generally requires civil disobedience, getting arrested for breaking the law, and then finally arguing the point before a judge. Alternatively, if you feel that your rights have been violated by an illegal law, you may file a civil suit rather taking the civil disobedience route. As I understand, there are various advantages to each choice, but since IANAL, I am not going to go there.
All of this begs one question: Is the law establishing TSA and allowing the grope-n-scope a violation of the Constitution? Well...technically, to get an accurate, authoritative answer to that question, someone must first challenge that law in court. However, there are those, including EPIC, ACLU and others, who think so. You might consider reading the 4th Amendment yourself to form your own opinion. In my opinion, for however much or however little, that's worth, yes, TSA is blatantly violating the 4th Amendment, and the fact that the entire nation isn't marching to D.C. with pitchforks and torches quite honestly boggles my mind. But then again, I'm a bit of an idealist.
I could have sworn that, in previous cases (not involving a US Senator), people were told that, if the scan found something odd, you could either accept the pat-down or be arrested...I wonder what would happen if a non-Congressfolk tried doing exactly what Rand Paul did. Would they be arrested for refusing the pat down? Would they be kicked out of the airport with a police escort?
You can stop wondering:
Alaska State Legislature member refuses pat-down.
John "Don't touch my junk!" Tyner refuses pat-down.
56-year old rape victim refuses pat-down.
YMMV. IIRC, TSA dropped charges against Tyner, but I don't believe the woman in Austin, TX was quite as lucky. To date, there are no politicians who have refused to allow themselves to be molested, excuse me, I mean "groped", err..."searched"...by TSA who have even had charges filed against them, much less who have actually been prosecuted. I guess the quote is true: "You know the score, Deckard. If you ain't cop, you're little people."
Yes, YES, YES !
We used to be "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave." WTF ever happened to that notion? Or was it just a cool line in a song some dude wrote two hundred years ago, but we never really believed it?
Or 3) modify the law so that Senators and Representatives get a "Get out of TSA free" card, like they've done for military and airline pilots.
That would be my vote, anyway.
Good. Someone (with sufficient clout, anyway) needs to.
Ron Paul is a Representative.
AND a presidential candidate.
Harsh treatment? Something weird came up on the scanner.
Do we know that? I mean truly, for certain, beyond any doubt? TSA claims that it's scanners can't store or transmit images (okay, we know that's not strictly true, but for the sake of argument...) so it's not like anyone can contest the body scanner results.
In other words, some TSA guy claims that there was an aberration on the scan result, and therefore they needed to grope^Wfrisk Sen. Paul to clear him through security. Surely there was no intent to harass him, right? Right? Guys? Anyone?
Don't think for a second that their jobs are at risk as long as they followed procedure. If they did deviate, however, they will be fired and hung out to dry.
You'd think so...but you'd be wrong. Moral of the story: it sucks to be the little guy. No matter what you do, you're still screwed.
ROFL. Nicely done.
I'm old enough and cynical enough to know better than to trust a politician...but Ron Paul is probably about as close as you'll get.
Perhaps if you removed your head from your anus, you'd already be aware of some of the stories I linked to above, instead of (erroneously) arguing that there is no evidence that such things are happening?
Citations needed? Here you go (these are all entries on my blog , but I have several links in these articles, and I'm too lazy to copy each individual link...which is fine, since apparently, you were too lazy to Google it yourself ;) :
Train station "VIPR" search.
Again at train stations.
And finally, bus stations and highways.
Bullcrap.
We don't have a right to fly in commercial aircraft without getting our freak on with TSA only because we have allowed the government to get away with it. The 4th Amendment says the government may not perform an "unreasonable" search without a court approving it, and even in that case the search is for specific things on specific persons in specific locations -- it does NOT apply to "everything every traveler brings to any airport anywhere in the nation -- or even overseas, if the airliner is traveling to the U.S.". Every court in the country would throw out a request for a warrant that was that broad. You can perhaps make the point that a metal detector is not "unreasonable"...but if you seriously think that the crap that's been happening in airports for the last 14 months is "reasonable", well, I hope you've enjoyed the Kool-Aid.
The fact that he would rather leave and rebook his flight than take a pat down is a bit weird.
Are you serious?!?! It's no wonder our country is in such sad shape, if this mindset is any reflection of the attitudes of the American people. I don't even know where to start dissecting this comment, but I'll give it a shot, anyway.
First, when faced with a choice of believing that a senator is doing something illegal or that the TSA is attempting to harass one of the few critics who actually has any kind of power over the agency, you side with TSA? Second, when someone actually shows some backbone and tells the TSA where it can shove it's (illegal) pat-downs, you think it's weird that he takes a moral high ground? Third, are you truly so focused on your goals that you are willing to give up the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to achieve them -- even if that goal is simply arriving at your intended destination at your intended arrival time, rather than taking a longer route rather than be a good sheep as you pass through a TSA check point?
I acknowledge the possibility that you consider the pat-downs less onerous and less of a violation of civil rights than I do. And if that's the case, then it may truly seem like a simple choice between a pat-down and rebooking your flight for a later time. However, not all of us feel that way. Apparently Sen. Paul believes more like me than like you (possibly) do. That does not, however, suggest that Sen. Paul actually had anything to hide, nor does it suggest that he was up to anything weirder (i.e., "more suspicious") than taking a stand for something he obviously believes in.
I also acknowledge that trying to decide whether a senator or the TSA is less corrupt is rather like arguing whether a pirhana or a tiger shark is more voracious. However, despite the fact that I think that most politicians are at least somewhat corrupt, I rather doubt that any of them are likely to smuggle weapons through an airport checkpoint so that they can hijack or blow up an airplane.
While there is a part of me that disagrees with the way you flippantly blew off the radiation concern, there is another part of me that genuinely enjoyed the wit you displayed while doing so. Well done indeed, sir!
I've heard that, but honestly, I'm more than just a bit skeptical of that claim. IMHO, the *MAJOR* factor in Linux never gaining any meaningful traction in the home user market is because most PCs ship with Windows already installed. If I'm Joe User, I don't know the difference between Linux and Windows. Consequently, if my PC comes with Windows installed, that's probably the OS I am going to use because 1) I don't know that another choice even exists, 2) I don't know why I might want a different OS, 3) I don't know how to remove the OS that's already installed even if I *did* want another OS, and finally, 4) I wouldn't know how to install an alternative OS. If what shipped with the PC works good enough*, why would the average user go to the effort of installing another OS (not to mention the effort of learning how to use that alternative OS)?
*Yes, I'm using that term loosely. I may prefer Linux to Windows (and I do), but the average user will look at it like this: "Can I get on-line with Windows? Can I check my e-mail, stocks and bank account on Windows? Can I buy things on Amazon? Then why is Linux/Mac/$randomOS better than Windows?" If it meets those requirements, then Windows is "good enough" and honestly, that's not an entirely unreasonable definition.
Gotta disagree with you, a bit. I've got a 7" tablet, a Dell Streak 7 that I won in a raffle, and I've found it to be pretty useful. It's probably not useful enough that I would have shelled out Dell's $400 asking price for it, but hey, it was free, and at that price, I'm satisfied :) At any rate, what I've found is that the Streak 7 is great to throw in a backpack or the saddlebags on my motorcycle -- basically, any time I wouldn't bother to drag a laptop around.
I suspect you could probably just sign out before searching.
Microsoft didn't force you to buy Windows either...
That point is somewhat debatable. It wasn't all that long ago that it was well-night impossible to buy (as opposed to "build") a PC without Windows, unless you ponied up a lot of extra $$$ for a Mac.
He will probably just tell you that your office would use less bandwidth if you'd stay off of /. ;)
<rant>...The average /. crowd these days seem to be quite egotistical to assume that they could "do it better". </rant>
Maybe that's because some of the people on /. have done it? I'm not claiming that an Arducopter or AR Drone Parrot is "better*" than a Global Hawk, but the fact is that there are indeed amateurs building drones that are more sophisticated than perhaps most not involved in the hobby suspect.
*"Better" is an ambiguous term, and before entering into a debate about whether one device is "better" than another, it is necessary to define the design requirements. For example, if I need a drone that can take off and land on my driveway, fly at a few hundred feet AGL in a residential neighborhood and operate on less than $1000 per year, then yeah, something I build at home myself is probably "better" than a Global Hawk. However, if I am entering into a military conflict with a well-armed, well-trained enemy with sophisticated ELINT capabilities, then my homebuilt drone is probably not the best choice.
"The downside — they're bandwidth hogs: a single Global Hawk drone requires 500 megabytes per second worth of bandwidth, the report finds, which is 500 percent of the total bandwidth of the entire U.S. military used during the 1991 Gulf War."
500%? Pshaw! By that measure, I must be a bandwidth hog, too. In 1991, I was dialing up to the local university's Vax mainframe on a 300 baud modem. Today I have a 10Mb cable modem. That's a bandwidth increase of (roughly) 3,300,000% in the same time frame!