Bruce Schneier vs. the TSA 741
An anonymous reader writes "Bruce Schneier has posted a huge recap of the controversy over TSA body scanners, including more information about the lawsuit he joined to ban them. There's too much news to summarize, but it covers everything from Penn Jillette's and Dave Barry's grope stories, to Israeli experts who say this isn't needed and hasn't ever stopped a bomb, to the three-year-old girl who was traumatized by being groped and much, much more."
Another reader passed along a related article, which says, "Congressman Ron Paul lashed out at the TSA yesterday and introduced a bill aimed at stopping federal abuse of passengers. Paul’s proposed legislation would pave the way for TSA employees to be sued for feeling up Americans and putting them through unsafe naked body scanners."
Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (Score:3, Informative)
Did you just miss the story about the Oregon senator blocking COICA? I had to consult Wikipedia to find out that the guy was a democrat. Every time I've ever seen a story regarding specific politicians I don't recall seeing party affiliation. And Ron Paul is high profile enough that if you don't know his affiliation then you're not paying attention and not interested in these kinds of stories anyway.
I tend to find that Slashdot's readership is left-leaning, but you're really grasping at straws here and it's embarrassing.
Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (Score:3, Informative)
"The COICA copyright bill may have sailed through committee, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, calling it the 'wrong medicine' to block copyright violations, is threatening to put a hold on the bill, which would block its adoption through at least the end of the year."
Senator Ron Wyden is a Democrat.
Re:Israeli Airport Security folks are professional (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (Score:3, Informative)
Well, they are not posing lasciviously, so it could still be legal. But never mind that. Legal issues are easy to deal with: change the law.
Moral issues are another matter. And the issue there is simple:
Young girls should not have to have their boobs bared by this scanner just to fly.
Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, it can. The Constitution defines what the Government is allowed to do, so whenever Government does something that the Constitution does not allow it to do (especially when the violation is blatant and performed knowingly), the Government is doing an illegal thing.
Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (Score:5, Informative)
Libertarians do believe in government (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind that the folks you see on TV are not there because they represent the typical. They are usually there because they represent the most entertaining, or if you prefer the cynical then because they represent the stereotype the producer wishes to portray.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (Score:3, Informative)
Excellent point, good chap. The sheer number of concealed weapons has surely made America one of the most respectful places in the world today!
Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (Score:3, Informative)
How's this?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html [lewrockwell.com]
Ron Paul may have some decent ideas about smaller government, but he's a religious loon, creationist who doesn't believe in evolution.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (Score:5, Informative)
Actually as the fourth 9/11 plane demonstrates, once the passengers know what the score is they are not going to worry about box cutters. Remember that prior to 9/11 passengers where instructed to play it safe if planes where hijacked. That WAS the safe thing to do until 9/11. After 9/11 it is NOT the safe thing to do and passengers no longer do so.
Locked cockpit doors and passengers willing to go to the mat are the ONLY two safety measures that increase your safety when flying. The rest is security theater.
Re:Wants US government to establish Official Relig (Score:3, Informative)
And this: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm [about.com]
Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (Score:3, Informative)
Possession of child pornography is illegal. Possession of naked images of children is only illegal if those images are pornography.
Re:Searches are a net loss (Score:3, Informative)
Tell that to the people scared of the terrorists... You can also join this chart [wired.com] to your argument.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously) (Score:5, Informative)
Look to see more bullshit agencies created by executive order, to illegally search - i mean safety screen - you in other venues as well. After all, a Phish concert certainly is a decent terrorist target, right?
It's already happening. Recently a Grateful Dead cover band had their property [campzoe.com] seized because they failed to provide enough security. I've been there several times and it was, without a doubt, the safest concert environment I have ever been to. There were no friskings because there was no need for it.
Re:Wants US government to establish Official Relig (Score:3, Informative)
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'. "
Re:Israeli Airport Security folks are professional (Score:5, Informative)
Scale doesn't matter. There's no shortage of proven interrogation techniques that work, and they're very easy to learn. I learned the Reid Technique [wikipedia.org] in the span of about a month. Saying it's impossible to train people is a plain copout, and excuse making.
Re:Libertarians are clueless (Score:4, Informative)
They often believe in regulation to the extent that it creates a level playing field and ensures safe products and services. Their complaint regarding regulations is often targeted against overregulation where the goal is societal engineering (for example: more people should own houses rather than rent) or political grandstanding (violent video games for example).
They say they're against regulation, but then they say they want some government interference.
No, they are against overregulation. From a libertarian perspective desired regulation would be something like transparency in banking and finance. Undesired regulation and interference might be regulations engineering a greater level of home ownership rather than renting.
The grown-ups have already decided that more government intervention is better than less government intervention.
Really, how did that intervention to increase home ownership and decrease renting work out?
Child porn in my photos?More likely than you think (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest/ [dallasobserver.com] ... oh wait, that last couple wasn't arrested, just had their kids taken away for a month while they decided whether or not to arrest them.
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14089 [conservati...ground.com]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts [msn.com]
Re:Libertarians do believe in government (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently I'm a Libertarian then. I assume fiscal responsibility is part of the package as well, right?
Yes. In fact, many people mistake us Libertarians for Republicans because we spend so much time harping on fiscal responsibility.
Of course, the truth is that we're socially liberal, sometimes extremely so. It's just that issues like rights for gay couples seem so obvious that there isn't much to debate, and complex issues like the national debt are much more fun to argue.
Re:I'd feel safer... (Score:3, Informative)
Air marshals carry specially designed firearms that are less likely to cause explosive decompression.
This is a myth. The air marshals carry [hendonpub.com] Sig Sauers chambered in .357 SIG that fire conventional jacketed hollow point bullets. They experimented with glaser safety slugs in the 70s and 80s but found they lacked sufficient stopping power to be effective against determined adversaries.
Well, multiple reasons (Score:2, Informative)
First is because it is not sexual in nature. I realize this may be hard to believe for some people but nudity and sex are separate issues. A nude picture of a child is not illegal. Most people would avoid such things because of the hysteria, fueled by posts like yours, over child porn but there is nothing wrong. You take a nude picture of your kid in the bath, 100% legal. Same reason why nudist colonies/beaches are legal. Yes, children do go there and get nude. Get over it. Part of nudism is the idea of disassociating sex from nudity. Our body uncovered is natural, and does not at all have to be sexual.
Another reason would be the nature of the images. They are not at all clear representations with easy to identify anatomy. They are strange ghostly pictures that are recognizable as a human form but little else. I know, I know you saw the article of the attractive girl who was easily visible naked when the colours were inverted... That's because that isn't a real scanner image, it is a stock model who'd picture was doctored (http://www.fotosearch.com/PHT246/paa246000018/ NSFW). The real images are far less distinct.
Now please note, that does not mean I think this is a good idea. It is a waste of time and money, and could possibly be a health risk to some high risk individuals. I'm not saying we should be doing it but the child porn thing is STUPID. It is just another attempt to create hysteria and to use a boogie man to shut down something you don't like. This is the same shit as when the various media industries or government agencies try to claim they need to crack down on a free web because of "child porn." They are actually talking about REAL child porn, but just like you are attempting to use it as an excuse to shut down something else they don't like.
Re:I'd feel safer... (Score:3, Informative)
Any American LEO can carry his service weapon [tsa.gov] on a flight if he's willing to take the TSA course and his agency approves of him carrying on the aircraft.
Re:Libertarians are clueless (Score:3, Informative)
How did Separate But Equal work out?
FYI, that was government policy...
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing in that article says that he wants a state religion or that he does not believe in evolution.
Re:Thanks Congressman Ron Paul (R)! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Libertarians do believe in government (Score:3, Informative)
Most libertarians do believe in government, regulations, police, fire departments etc. Their complaint regarding government is often that the wrong level is addressing an issue, that state or local levels should be handling a particular issue rather than the federal (national) level
I'm sorry, but that's BS. Libertarianism is about minarchy on all levels of the government, not about decentralization. From your definition it follows that a libertarian would not necessarily oppose e.g. welfare programs, if they are implemented on local levels rather than federal ones. That does not make any sense.
Decentralization and federalism are political views that are mostly orthogonal to one's political and economic stance, which is what largely defines libertarianism. I'm a leftie, but I'm also for decentralization, and believe that federations with weak central government and strong local ones are inherently more democratic, and thus superior. I would be very offended if someone called me a libertarian.
The only political ideology that is inherently opposed to federalism is fascism.
TSA confiscates nail clippers from soldiers (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't seen this story posted yet, and it's far too good to pass up.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/ [redstate.com]
To summarize: 330 soldiers coming back from Afghanistan were flying back to the US. They were carrying (all unloaded) M4 assault rifles, some carrying M9 pistols, and some carrying M-240B machine guns. After flying part of the way back and dropping off 100 soldiers, the TSA decide the rest need to deplane and all need to go through screening again. They find a pair of nail clippers on a soldier, and confiscate them, saying they are a potential weapon.
The soldiers continue on with their unloaded guns and fly on to their destination.
Now really, are the TSA so moronic, that they don't understand the ASSAULT RIFLES could be used as a bludgeon weapon far more effectively then a pair of toenail clippers? I mean, come on, these guys just got back from fighting in the terrorist's safe haven. About the last thing they're going to do is to help the psycho idiots, and yet they confiscate their toenail clippers, and let them continue on with the rifles?
Really?
No, REALLY?
Re:Biggest legal issue, IMO (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, the "think of the children" defense is actually relevant - an adult can legally consent to another adult touching his or her genitals, but a child can't. (Which is not to say that adults should consent to the TSA's groping.)