Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Will congress simply legalize it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will congress simply legalize it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meet the new congress ... same as the old congress.
The last part of your complaint really puts things in perspective, doesn't it? I could have voted for a republican candidate if he had been willing to shrink the powers of our government. I could have voted for a democrat who was willing to do that. Sadly, I've never seen a serious candidate for national office (except Ron Paul) who could plausibly claim that he was willing to reduce federal power in any practical way.
I hope that over the next two years, we will all learn that, just as voting republican in 2000 didn't solve our problems with government, voting democrat in 2006 and 2008 won't either. I wish that we had a viable alternative, but I'm afraid that we won't see one until after we all see that we need one.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Before you hope that people learn their lesson, why can't you hope that voting democrat might solve your problems?
Umm.... because it never has before? Just like voting Republican never has before. Einstein's definition of insanity applies here. If you keep doing exactly the same thing, and keep expecting different results, that's insane. For people who really want change to occur, the only hope is to do something different. Vote for the candidate that actually comes closest to representing your views, not for the one you think most electable that you can barely stomach over the other guy. I don't care if you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The previous set did most of the dirty work, all that talk about frogmen plotting to poison our water supplies or how some guy somewhere might be thinking about trying to blow up or otherwise damage or hijack an aircraft using maybe a gel or liquid possibly concealed in some ev
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fly. (Score:3, Interesting)
Traveling by bus, train, or car is not as fast or comfortable, but at least you can do it with some of your privacy intact.
Just say no.
Re:Will congress simply legalize it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dripping sarcasm notwithstanding, there's a fundamental point here. Can the intrusions in liberty be justified by reduced risk of hijackings or whatever? Or, perhaps, do they increase the risk? Some evidence would be apropos.
Suppose that the numbers above were true. The toll in deaths and ruined lives would still be lower than, say, the carnage on the highways. An orthogonal issue? I don't think so. Just think of what you could do with the billions of dollars wasted on building the police state. Highway safety is not even the most effective use to which these dollars could be put, but its orders of magnitude better than whatever DHS does with it.
But don't let my digression distract you from the fundamental point: there is not one iota of evidence that wiretaps, no-fly lists, torture, profiling, etc. make us safer. There is plenty of evidence that they directly diminish our quality of life, and indirectly divert our resources from more worthy pursuits.
Parent
Re:Will congress simply legalize it? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Okay... How can this be used (Score:2)
It is publicly available or is it only available to the government?
Re:Okay... How can this be used (Score:5, Insightful)
>
>For Hiring?
> Is it publicly available or is it only available to the government?
It's a government database, much like the databases that hold criminal records, etc. Access to it is sold to data brokers such as Choicepoint.
When Company X wants to hire you, they ask Choicepoint if you're "a good risk".
Choicepoint crunches the numbers by means of a proprietary formula, one of the ingredients of which your credit rating (for sale by other data brokers), another of which is your criminal record and/or arrest history (for sale by other arms of the government), and another of which is now your Terrorist Score.
Neither you (nor Company X!) ever finds out what your Terrorist Score is. Company X takes a look at Choicepoint's evaluation and combines it, with your resume, and how well you did on the job interview, and whatever else it wants... and decides whether or not to hire you.
So if your Terrorist Score is too high, you might not get the job, because Choicepoint or the other background-checking firms have decided that it's important enough to make you a risk... or maybe not. You'll never know. That's both a feature (everyone has plausible deniability, so nobody can get sued), and a bug (you may be denied a job because of a bogus data point in your Terrorist Score, just as you can be denied a job due to bogus data on your credit history -- but you can at least fix the errors in your credit history.)
Now that that's out of the way, can we stop calling it a Terrorist Score? If I keep using that term, your score goes up. Probably the only way to fix a bad Terrorist Score is to start calling it a Freedom Score. At the rate I'm going, I'm gonna have to donate at least $1000 to both the RNC and the DNC before I can get hired again, let alone fly anywhere.
Parent
Won't be too long (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting? Please. It's been more than "way out of control" for longer than I can remember. There shouldn't even be any fucking discussion about this sort of shit. People who "may" be locked up currently shouldn't have to wait for the lopsided Supreme Court to overturn this.
It's a sad time for our nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't be too long (Score:5, Insightful)
Dissent is what founded our country.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If crime-fighters fight crime, and fire-fighters fight fire, what do freedom-fighters fight?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this system still function.... (Score:5, Funny)
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Nobody! (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is it that you guys are getting the idea that the rule of law applies to this administration? That wouldn't be in their interests at all. And since they're in charge of enforcing the laws they break...
And if you think that Congress, aside from a couple of freaks like Feingold and Leahy, are going to do anything about this at all... well, I hope you're right, but I'd bet against it.
PS: I like those freaks. I wish they weren't the exception.
I've seen this before (Score:2, Interesting)
positive matches (Score:5, Insightful)
Paul Rosenzweig, a high-level Homeland Security official, told Congress in September that the system had "encountered 4801 positive matches for known or suspected terrorists." However, it is unclear how many of those were correct matches.
No, it's very clear. Zero. Zilch, none, nada. If there were any correct matches, they would trot them out and use them to demonstrate the "success" of the program.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think some sort of new check and balance needs to be put in place against the executive branch. We're supposed to have the Congress and the Supreme Court to protect us from potential abuses, but they haven't obviously served us very well in the past 6 years...
What we need, I'm not sure. But we need something.
-B
All the more reason... (Score:2)
The one bright spot to all of this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
pet peeve (Score:3, Funny)
Jesus, when did the airlines have such a low opinion of their passengers that they think that they don't know what disembark means?
Seriously, deplane? Sound more like delouse. AAAAAHHHHH, get these planes off me!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Chris Mattern
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next they'll be attempting a sea landing... oh. Wait.
Re:pet peeve (Score:4, Funny)
Deplane sounds like what I do to a piece of paper when I make it into a ball and throw it in the rubbish, or deform any other planar surface so it is no longer a plane.
Or, as the parent poster suggested, it sounds like we are being cleansed of an infestation of tiny parasitic planes. Deice - remove ice, degauss - remove gauss, delouse - remove lice, deplane - remove planes. Makes more sense to me.
Parent
can't see it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Profiling is a good thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All of them - just check the database.
All of them - just check the database. And don't tell me you can't!
All of them - just check the database. And don't whine about it being exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests. After all, we're protecting our country... or at least all except for the statistically insignificant number who are
Re: (Score:2)
Timothy McVeigh was not a "radical Muslim". Plus, as has been pointed out repeatedly, once you start profiling, the terrorists will just start to pick people that don't "fit" the profile.
Profiling also potentially violates the rights of people who may fit the profile but not be involved. Just because most people who commit violent crimes are black males doesn't mean we start jailing all black male men in the US. Peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Just the word "profiling" is offensive to African-Americans because of their extensive history in being "profiled" in the past. For example, the Florida State Police were prevented from such "profiling" back in the 1980's. They had identified a trend that expensive cars being driven at high speeds by African-Americans had a strong correlation to there being significant quantities of drugs in the car. This was viewed as completely unethical and such profiling was ended
Re: (Score:2)
"In the event some lunatic stands up in the aisle
Domestic versus International Flights (Score:2, Interesting)
Once again ignorance is no bar to blanket assertions of illegal acts.
DHS preserved the Constitution? (Score:3, Funny)
The Department of Homeland Security actually wrote something that would PRESERVE our Constitutional rights?!?!
Who are you and what have you done with our fascist overlords?
link to comments and text of law (Score:3, Informative)
The Identity Project comments, including as an appendix the text of the relevant law, are at:
http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-ATS-comments.pdf [hasbrouck.org]
Those comments also expain how the "Automated Targeting System" would include information on domestic flights and travelers, in addition to international travel records.
There's more background on my blog, and the Identity Project blog:
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001184.html [hasbrouck.org]
http://papersplease.org/wp/2006/12/05/every-trave
Don't Like It? Tell them! (Score:2)
Lost in translation (Score:3, Funny)
a) DHS is an airline (or similar),
b) one of their passengers got lucky, but
c) they got busted.
Something everyone is forgetting here: (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me crazy... (Score:4, Insightful)
But wouldn't it make more sense to give those high scorers extra screening before they got on the plane?
Re:Dupe...? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's things like this that I like about slashdot. Posting multiple articles from different sources about the same subject allows for both a healthy debate by us and tends to provide more then one side to a story. Instead of just getting the bias of one publication we get to see the subtle shades of bias and decide for ourselves who makes sense, who we want to agree with or believe.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next thing you know, he'll have NASA purposely direct meteors at America so he can show how prepared for any disaster he is. Enormous clouds of dust will rise up out of the craters of midwest cities and George Bush will be flying over head in a helicop
Re:Of Course, We Could Just Round Up all the Musli (Score:2)
But then, you know, there are Americans out there, not me and not you of course, that can't tell the difference between a good m
Re:Denies rights based on secret laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow I find that rather scary.
Parent