4 ms·

The issue is one of privacy. These corruption accusations detract from the heart of the matter. Would it be a "win" if the scanners were all removed because o

The issue is one of privacy. These corruption accusations detract from the heart of the matter. Would it be a "win" if the scanners were all removed because of corruption? No, the point is the acknowledgement of the rights of the individual to a certain level of privacy. By the way, it's not weird for a man to switch to a company he's dealt with personally and whose products he presumably respects.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gr366 16y ago
A friend and I were just talking about a "Career Pattern" in which an executive who brought in a 3rd party (often a startup) winds up working for them after leaving his BigCo. It's all too common.
- spthorn 16y ago
  Oh, you mean like this: http://current.com/news/92009377_obama-appoints-monsanto-man-as-fda-food-safety-czar.htm http://current.com/news/92009377_obama-appoints-monsanto-man...
DanI-S 16y ago
The issue is that our privacy is being violated not just for vague promises of 'national security' but for his personal gain.
- jpwagner 16y ago
  The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY. Suppose it was proven to help national security, suppose it was scientifically proven safe, would its use be palatable? There is a question over what privacy needs to be protected. If this issue gets too into WHY these devices were purchased, we may lose the next privacy debate.
  - epo 16y ago
    The issues are separate, privacy invasion is wrong and should be stopped. Corrupt procurement is a crime and should be prosecuted. I would expect a corrupt individual to try and deflect attention by saying things like, "never mind how they were bought, look at how secure our airports are". EDIT there are two issues I don't see that one has priority over the other. I agree, reluctantly, that to avoid confusing the public it might help to focus on one issue but possible corruption needs to be addressed eventually.
  - rhizome 16y ago
    All of these things should contribute to a debate that should not be artifically limited by the values of any participant or for simplicity's sake. Privacy and health are more aspects of a complicated situation that should not just be imposed on the population like this one is. I mean, I hope its not controversial to assert that the scanners are being imposed. And for the record, it hasn't been proven to help national security. It also doesn't make ice cream, but what if it did? Is the best idea we can come up with the one that coincidentally is being cheerled by Michael Chertoff? Among many other misgivings, this is not the right place for the revolving door of politics, opportunism and business. US tax dollars are paying for all of this, after all.
  - SkyMarshal 16y ago
    >The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY. It should clearly be about both. Both are huge, existential problems.
grandalf 16y ago
It's true that it's very common and there is often nothing untoward about it. The issue that I think is most relevant is that there has been virtually no transparency about the machines, the health and privacy risks they pose, etc. It's as if these contractors with high level government connections made a big sale to the US Government and the public had no choice about whether to pay for it or whether to consent to the risks. Learning that one of the main beneficiaries of this big sale was the very recent head of the government office that purchased the machines suggests that perhaps there was worry that transparency might have jeopardized that commission.
- jdp23 16y ago
  Well said. There's more on the lack of transparency, and GAO's criticisms of TSAs testing, at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20023079-10391695.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20023079-10391695.html
jdp23 16y ago
It would be a huge win if the scanners were removed because of corruption. It would be an even bigger win if people went to jail because of it, but I'm not holding my breath. "The heart of the matter" is restoring our rights at the airport. Exposing the corruption that's part of the surveillance-industrial complex can play a big role in this. Privacy, effectivness, civil liberties, impact on business, and kids rights are all good avenues as well.
- jpwagner 16y ago
  How short-sighted. If they were removed because someone wrote a bad check would that be acceptable to you as well. The devices are an invasion of privacy and that should be confronted head-on, otherwise, there will just be the next invasive device to deal with.
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    But how did they get there? The entire security theater industry, along with the defense industry, is built on top of an untold number of conflicts of interest and perverse incentives. Did the scanners cause controversy before they were installed? Sure, and under any sane system of governance they would have never progressed beyond that point. The problem was that, at every point that mattered, our officials were incentivized to invade our privacy (e.g., campaign contributions, direct profit from sale of devices, etc). It seems to me far more productive, and far more likely to succeed to attack corruption and realign incentives than it is to make a moralistic case in front of a bunch of amoral thugs.
  - SkyMarshal 16y ago
    Short-sighted is not understanding that the example in this article is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, possibly the single greatest problem facing the US at this time, and needs to be opposed not only everywhere it occurs, but also at the root. Lawrence Lessig, the expert, can explain it more detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF6WI5y0aU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF6WI5y0aU
  - jdp23 16y ago
pavs 16y ago
> By the way, it's not weird for a man to switch to company he's dealt with personally and whose products he presumably respects. I think its troubling that you don't see anything wrong with this.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- ars 16y ago
  The reverse would be troubling, but this direction is extremely common.
  - lutorm 16y ago
    common is uncorrelated with troubling.
- oiuyhgtfryhuj 16y ago
  In my contract it is not only weird but somewhat illegal for me to leave and work for a supplier - especially one I just approved a big order from. If it's perfectly reasonable that I'm prohibited from working for our printer paper supplier (however much I respect them) why is it ok for a government official to skip to a company that he wrote a big taxpayer check to?
specialist 16y ago
How quaint. You're curiously naive, or willfully ignorant, of how the USA's system of political patronage works. Since when is right and wrong a factor in decision making? As for revolving door promotions (e.g. civil server to lobbying and back again), you seem blissfully unaware, or myopic, of the notion "conflict of interest". Before I let you go, tell me: What flavor of candy covered unicorns inhabit your fantasy world? Please. Continue.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

gr366 16y ago

A friend and I were just talking about a "Career Pattern" in which an executive who brought in a 3rd party (often a startup) winds up working for them after leaving his BigCo. It's all too common.

spthorn 16y ago
Oh, you mean like this: http://current.com/news/92009377_obama-appoints-monsanto-man-as-fda-food-safety-czar.htm http://current.com/news/92009377_obama-appoints-monsanto-man...

DanI-S 16y ago

The issue is that our privacy is being violated not just for vague promises of 'national security' but for his personal gain.

jpwagner 16y ago
The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY. Suppose it was proven to help national security, suppose it was scientifically proven safe, would its use be palatable? There is a question over what privacy needs to be protected. If this issue gets too into WHY these devices were purchased, we may lose the next privacy debate.
- epo 16y ago
  The issues are separate, privacy invasion is wrong and should be stopped. Corrupt procurement is a crime and should be prosecuted. I would expect a corrupt individual to try and deflect attention by saying things like, "never mind how they were bought, look at how secure our airports are". EDIT there are two issues I don't see that one has priority over the other. I agree, reluctantly, that to avoid confusing the public it might help to focus on one issue but possible corruption needs to be addressed eventually.
- rhizome 16y ago
  All of these things should contribute to a debate that should not be artifically limited by the values of any participant or for simplicity's sake. Privacy and health are more aspects of a complicated situation that should not just be imposed on the population like this one is. I mean, I hope its not controversial to assert that the scanners are being imposed. And for the record, it hasn't been proven to help national security. It also doesn't make ice cream, but what if it did? Is the best idea we can come up with the one that coincidentally is being cheerled by Michael Chertoff? Among many other misgivings, this is not the right place for the revolving door of politics, opportunism and business. US tax dollars are paying for all of this, after all.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  >The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY. It should clearly be about both. Both are huge, existential problems.

grandalf 16y ago

It's true that it's very common and there is often nothing untoward about it. The issue that I think is most relevant is that there has been virtually no transparency about the machines, the health and privacy risks they pose, etc. It's as if these contractors with high level government connections made a big sale to the US Government and the public had no choice about whether to pay for it or whether to consent to the risks. Learning that one of the main beneficiaries of this big sale was the very recent head of the government office that purchased the machines suggests that perhaps there was worry that transparency might have jeopardized that commission.

jdp23 16y ago
Well said. There's more on the lack of transparency, and GAO's criticisms of TSAs testing, at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20023079-10391695.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20023079-10391695.html

jdp23 16y ago

It would be a huge win if the scanners were removed because of corruption. It would be an even bigger win if people went to jail because of it, but I'm not holding my breath. "The heart of the matter" is restoring our rights at the airport. Exposing the corruption that's part of the surveillance-industrial complex can play a big role in this. Privacy, effectivness, civil liberties, impact on business, and kids rights are all good avenues as well.

jpwagner 16y ago
How short-sighted. If they were removed because someone wrote a bad check would that be acceptable to you as well. The devices are an invasion of privacy and that should be confronted head-on, otherwise, there will just be the next invasive device to deal with.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  But how did they get there? The entire security theater industry, along with the defense industry, is built on top of an untold number of conflicts of interest and perverse incentives. Did the scanners cause controversy before they were installed? Sure, and under any sane system of governance they would have never progressed beyond that point. The problem was that, at every point that mattered, our officials were incentivized to invade our privacy (e.g., campaign contributions, direct profit from sale of devices, etc). It seems to me far more productive, and far more likely to succeed to attack corruption and realign incentives than it is to make a moralistic case in front of a bunch of amoral thugs.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  Short-sighted is not understanding that the example in this article is just a symptom of a much bigger problem, possibly the single greatest problem facing the US at this time, and needs to be opposed not only everywhere it occurs, but also at the root. Lawrence Lessig, the expert, can explain it more detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF6WI5y0aU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnF6WI5y0aU
- jdp23 16y ago

pavs 16y ago

> By the way, it's not weird for a man to switch to company he's dealt with personally and whose products he presumably respects. I think its troubling that you don't see anything wrong with this.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ars 16y ago
The reverse would be troubling, but this direction is extremely common.
- lutorm 16y ago
  common is uncorrelated with troubling.
oiuyhgtfryhuj 16y ago
In my contract it is not only weird but somewhat illegal for me to leave and work for a supplier - especially one I just approved a big order from. If it's perfectly reasonable that I'm prohibited from working for our printer paper supplier (however much I respect them) why is it ok for a government official to skip to a company that he wrote a big taxpayer check to?

specialist 16y ago

How quaint. You're curiously naive, or willfully ignorant, of how the USA's system of political patronage works. Since when is right and wrong a factor in decision making? As for revolving door promotions (e.g. civil server to lobbying and back again), you seem blissfully unaware, or myopic, of the notion "conflict of interest". Before I let you go, tell me: What flavor of candy covered unicorns inhabit your fantasy world? Please. Continue.