7 ms·

No More Fear

138 points by olefoo 16y ago

zdw 16y ago
Also recommended reading are Bruce Schneier's book "Beyond Fear" which provides a great mental framework for thinking about security (mainly IRL, but with applications in computing) http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html and his blog: http://www.schneier.com/ http://www.schneier.com/
sdghrth 16y ago
-------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://yep.it/fyphgj http://yep.it/fyphgj ------ Gold autumn, personality Men’s clothing + Shoes, Travel bag that grabs an eye coat + Chao packet Free transport -------- http://yep.it/fyphgj http://yep.it/fyphgj ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------
jdp23 16y ago
That's the kind of country I want to live in too. With the wave of opposition to the TSA and legislative battles over the Internet Wiretapping bill, COICA, and the Patriot Act renewal, 2011 will go a long way to determining what kind of country we'll be. So articles like this are a great opportunity to ask yourself ... Are you going to get involved and help?
- bingaman 16y ago
  Give me some examples of how I can get involved and help.
  - jdp23 16y ago
    Great suggestion. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head - probably the most important: talk with your friends and family about the issues and try to get them beyond their fears. - if you've got a few $ to spare, contributed to groups like EPIC (who's leading the lawsuit against the TSA scanners), EFF, BORDC, and ACLU. - call your congressperson's office and let them know that these are important issues to the country, you expect them to take an active role, and it will be affecting how you vote in 2012. - specifically on the TSA, adjust your habits to reduce (or even better eliminate) flying. when you do fly, take educational material with you to the airport, talk with people next to you in line, and opt out of the scanners. - and track what's going on; there are likely to be some intense activism campaigns once Congress gets back into session, and plenty of opportunities to get involved online or off
  - x09 16y ago
    Stop voting in the same turncoats to office all the time. Do whatever it takes to take back our nation. Our government is not representative of our interests, here or abroad. That is clear enough.
michaelty 16y ago
I'd like to go back to a country where I can keep my shoes on before I go on a plane.
- enjalot 16y ago
  I had a hole in my sock the last time I flew :(
blatherard 16y ago
Kevin Drum made a point that stuck with me in defense of TSA procedures (which I am otherwise inclined to find odious.) That is that the political and cultural environment is such right now that if a plane goes down due to terrorism, the country is going to go crazy and clamp down really hard on civil liberties in a truly damaging way. So we should prefer measures that, while intrusive, are generally pretty limited. He argues that it is all well and good to say that "planes will go down but that's a small price to pay", but when it actually happens, life will be worse for everyone. The idealist in me is disappointed to consider this argument, but it seems pretty realistic. It's towards the end of this blog post http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/my-tsa-anti-rant http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/my-tsa-anti-rant
- jdp23 16y ago
  There's a flaw in Kevin's argument: the odious measures don't actually reduce the chance of a plane going around to terrorism. In fact by diverting resources from more effective security measures (e.g. focusing on cargo) they actually increase the chance.
  - blatherard 16y ago
    If you take a look at his article, he makes a few basic arguments that at least some of the measures are targeted at keeping explosives off of planes and seem reasonably sensible. For example, take the shoe check. Richard Reid came pretty close to blowing up a plane, but for a flight delay (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber) ). He kind of prominently proved out an approach, and since the goal of the TSA is pretty obviously not having a plane blow up, they instituted a visible countermeasure to that approach. So: I don't agree that every measure instituted by the TSA is completely ineffectual, at least in theory. That being said, you do raise a good point about the allocation of resources. I have to admit having much less sense of what is and isn't being done on the cargo side, if only because I only experience air travel as a passenger. Do you know much more about cargo security? What measures would you institute?
    - 16y ago
JimboOmega 16y ago
I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current security theater is a waste of effort at best. I seem to read articles like this or articles advocating "Israelification" about once a week. The thing that bothers me most is TSA has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to? Some bureaucratic process decides we can't wear shoes, bring water bottles, or (the latest new rule) can't bring more than 16 oz. of printer cartridges through a checkpoint. There's no debate, partisan or otherwise; there's no angry constituents. Instead it is the TSA who decides these things, and no congressman can be anti-TSA, because that's tantamount to being anti-security. I'm also pretty sure TSA is part of the executive branch - so do we complain to Obama, then...?
- lkrubner 16y ago
  Yes, the TSA is part of the Executive Branch, so it ultimately reports to Obama. On a related note, you may wish to read Friedrich von Hayek's book, published in 1944, The Road To Serfdom. He covers many subjects in this book, but one of them is the danger that arises when the legislative branch delegates wholesale powers to the executive branch, or, as you say, "has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to?" Hayek worried about this separation of responsibility from power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom Hayek was, in part, looking at the British system, which is Parliamentary. They have some advantage there in that there is a clear separation between the head of state and the head of government. The USA is the only democracy that has ever tried to combine these two offices. The fact that no other country has ever imitated this aspect of American government (whereas most other aspects of the American Constitution have been imitated) says a lot about what a bad idea this is. In most democracies, the people are free to show their respect and veneration for the (usually powerless) head of state, and the people feel free to show scathing disrespect to the (powerful) head of government. In the USA, the people often have mixed emotions - when you criticize the head of government, you are also criticizing the head of state, so people typically pull their punches, and use language that is more respectful that what typically gets directed at a head of government in other democracies.
  - 16y ago
code_duck 16y ago
My conclusion about all of this is that the government wants people to be afraid. These are not real attempts to detect threats to flights. If anything, they're most interested in finding drugs and smuggled valuables. And this is not 'security theater'. The intent is to get everyone used to invasive, police-state style behavior.
- nazgulnarsil 16y ago
  I am forced to adjust my beliefs in the direction of "crazy conspiracy theorists" more every year.
  - kirubakaran 16y ago
    Devolution into police(ish) state may be just an emergent phenomenon of the political+social set up. No conspiracy necessary. No wonder the founding fathers viewed this as something to be actively fought against.
    - lucifer 16y ago
      In the general sense, you are correct regarding the possibility bottom up order. But the bottom falls out from the argument given that the 'context' in question e.g. "political+social set up" is (conceptually) very much the principle object of the conspiracy.
    - nazgulnarsil 16y ago
      well that is what I believe, democracy or any populist system is too easily run on the immediate carrot and stick. What i meant is that each year the hypotheses of conspiracy wackos seem to make better predictions than the last, even if they dont have the cause right.
- rickmode 16y ago
  It's not that governments want people scared, rather there's no incentive to avoid scaring the public. And so officials go ahead with their politically expedient security theater. The officials get the benefit of appearing to "do something" while the resulting inconvenience and "scare" never wash back on them.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
tutufunk 16y ago
Air nazism is a disincentive against air travel, which are necessary given the current environmental situation.
- jdp23 16y ago
  Air Nazism doesn't help security. It's a huge waste of money. And as you say it's a disincentive against air travel. Why is it necessary?
  - alanh 16y ago
    Parent is arguing that TSA means fewer flights, which means less shit being burnt in the atmosphere; that this is a net benefit for the planet.
  - lucifer 16y ago
    Because this the end goal - control over movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_system_in_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_system_in_the_Soviet_U... (Unreasonable searches; practical denial of the right to assembly.) I would provocatively suggest that you read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's recent works as well as his Gulag Archipelago.
forgotAgain 16y ago
Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses. From the social stigma given to those riding a bicycle without a helmet to the demand for cradle to grave protection by the government: we are not our forefathers.
- j_baker 16y ago
  > Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses. All the things that are wrong with our nation and the best phrase to describe the situation is "wusses"? Are we still in High School?
julian37 16y ago
"Plus, don’t let a plane take off if someone has checked in luggage but isn’t on board" I'm pretty sure that is already the case, at least for international flights. I've been on numerous planes that got delayed because a passenger didn't show up and the airline had to unload their luggage.
nphase 16y ago
Quick aside: Look at how many hijackings occurred before 2001, especially in the 70s and 80s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijack... Before 9/11, it was just another risk of flying. Now...

138 points by olefoo 16y ago

zdw 16y ago

Also recommended reading are Bruce Schneier's book "Beyond Fear" which provides a great mental framework for thinking about security (mainly IRL, but with applications in computing) http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html and his blog: http://www.schneier.com/ http://www.schneier.com/

sdghrth 16y ago

-------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://yep.it/fyphgj http://yep.it/fyphgj ------ Gold autumn, personality Men’s clothing + Shoes, Travel bag that grabs an eye coat + Chao packet Free transport -------- http://yep.it/fyphgj http://yep.it/fyphgj ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------

jdp23 16y ago

That's the kind of country I want to live in too. With the wave of opposition to the TSA and legislative battles over the Internet Wiretapping bill, COICA, and the Patriot Act renewal, 2011 will go a long way to determining what kind of country we'll be. So articles like this are a great opportunity to ask yourself ... Are you going to get involved and help?

bingaman 16y ago
Give me some examples of how I can get involved and help.
- jdp23 16y ago
  Great suggestion. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head - probably the most important: talk with your friends and family about the issues and try to get them beyond their fears. - if you've got a few $ to spare, contributed to groups like EPIC (who's leading the lawsuit against the TSA scanners), EFF, BORDC, and ACLU. - call your congressperson's office and let them know that these are important issues to the country, you expect them to take an active role, and it will be affecting how you vote in 2012. - specifically on the TSA, adjust your habits to reduce (or even better eliminate) flying. when you do fly, take educational material with you to the airport, talk with people next to you in line, and opt out of the scanners. - and track what's going on; there are likely to be some intense activism campaigns once Congress gets back into session, and plenty of opportunities to get involved online or off
- x09 16y ago
  Stop voting in the same turncoats to office all the time. Do whatever it takes to take back our nation. Our government is not representative of our interests, here or abroad. That is clear enough.

michaelty 16y ago

I'd like to go back to a country where I can keep my shoes on before I go on a plane.

enjalot 16y ago
I had a hole in my sock the last time I flew :(

blatherard 16y ago

Kevin Drum made a point that stuck with me in defense of TSA procedures (which I am otherwise inclined to find odious.) That is that the political and cultural environment is such right now that if a plane goes down due to terrorism, the country is going to go crazy and clamp down really hard on civil liberties in a truly damaging way. So we should prefer measures that, while intrusive, are generally pretty limited. He argues that it is all well and good to say that "planes will go down but that's a small price to pay", but when it actually happens, life will be worse for everyone. The idealist in me is disappointed to consider this argument, but it seems pretty realistic. It's towards the end of this blog post http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/my-tsa-anti-rant http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/my-tsa-anti-rant

jdp23 16y ago
There's a flaw in Kevin's argument: the odious measures don't actually reduce the chance of a plane going around to terrorism. In fact by diverting resources from more effective security measures (e.g. focusing on cargo) they actually increase the chance.
- blatherard 16y ago
  If you take a look at his article, he makes a few basic arguments that at least some of the measures are targeted at keeping explosives off of planes and seem reasonably sensible. For example, take the shoe check. Richard Reid came pretty close to blowing up a plane, but for a flight delay (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber) ). He kind of prominently proved out an approach, and since the goal of the TSA is pretty obviously not having a plane blow up, they instituted a visible countermeasure to that approach. So: I don't agree that every measure instituted by the TSA is completely ineffectual, at least in theory. That being said, you do raise a good point about the allocation of resources. I have to admit having much less sense of what is and isn't being done on the cargo side, if only because I only experience air travel as a passenger. Do you know much more about cargo security? What measures would you institute?
  - 16y ago

JimboOmega 16y ago

I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current security theater is a waste of effort at best. I seem to read articles like this or articles advocating "Israelification" about once a week. The thing that bothers me most is TSA has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to? Some bureaucratic process decides we can't wear shoes, bring water bottles, or (the latest new rule) can't bring more than 16 oz. of printer cartridges through a checkpoint. There's no debate, partisan or otherwise; there's no angry constituents. Instead it is the TSA who decides these things, and no congressman can be anti-TSA, because that's tantamount to being anti-security. I'm also pretty sure TSA is part of the executive branch - so do we complain to Obama, then...?

lkrubner 16y ago
Yes, the TSA is part of the Executive Branch, so it ultimately reports to Obama. On a related note, you may wish to read Friedrich von Hayek's book, published in 1944, The Road To Serfdom. He covers many subjects in this book, but one of them is the danger that arises when the legislative branch delegates wholesale powers to the executive branch, or, as you say, "has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to?" Hayek worried about this separation of responsibility from power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom Hayek was, in part, looking at the British system, which is Parliamentary. They have some advantage there in that there is a clear separation between the head of state and the head of government. The USA is the only democracy that has ever tried to combine these two offices. The fact that no other country has ever imitated this aspect of American government (whereas most other aspects of the American Constitution have been imitated) says a lot about what a bad idea this is. In most democracies, the people are free to show their respect and veneration for the (usually powerless) head of state, and the people feel free to show scathing disrespect to the (powerful) head of government. In the USA, the people often have mixed emotions - when you criticize the head of government, you are also criticizing the head of state, so people typically pull their punches, and use language that is more respectful that what typically gets directed at a head of government in other democracies.
- 16y ago

code_duck 16y ago

My conclusion about all of this is that the government wants people to be afraid. These are not real attempts to detect threats to flights. If anything, they're most interested in finding drugs and smuggled valuables. And this is not 'security theater'. The intent is to get everyone used to invasive, police-state style behavior.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago
I am forced to adjust my beliefs in the direction of "crazy conspiracy theorists" more every year.
- kirubakaran 16y ago
  Devolution into police(ish) state may be just an emergent phenomenon of the political+social set up. No conspiracy necessary. No wonder the founding fathers viewed this as something to be actively fought against.
  - lucifer 16y ago
    In the general sense, you are correct regarding the possibility bottom up order. But the bottom falls out from the argument given that the 'context' in question e.g. "political+social set up" is (conceptually) very much the principle object of the conspiracy.
  - nazgulnarsil 16y ago
    well that is what I believe, democracy or any populist system is too easily run on the immediate carrot and stick. What i meant is that each year the hypotheses of conspiracy wackos seem to make better predictions than the last, even if they dont have the cause right.
rickmode 16y ago
It's not that governments want people scared, rather there's no incentive to avoid scaring the public. And so officials go ahead with their politically expedient security theater. The officials get the benefit of appearing to "do something" while the resulting inconvenience and "scare" never wash back on them.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

tutufunk 16y ago

Air nazism is a disincentive against air travel, which are necessary given the current environmental situation.

jdp23 16y ago
Air Nazism doesn't help security. It's a huge waste of money. And as you say it's a disincentive against air travel. Why is it necessary?
- alanh 16y ago
  Parent is arguing that TSA means fewer flights, which means less shit being burnt in the atmosphere; that this is a net benefit for the planet.
- lucifer 16y ago
  Because this the end goal - control over movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_system_in_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_system_in_the_Soviet_U... (Unreasonable searches; practical denial of the right to assembly.) I would provocatively suggest that you read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's recent works as well as his Gulag Archipelago.

forgotAgain 16y ago

Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses. From the social stigma given to those riding a bicycle without a helmet to the demand for cradle to grave protection by the government: we are not our forefathers.

j_baker 16y ago
> Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses. All the things that are wrong with our nation and the best phrase to describe the situation is "wusses"? Are we still in High School?

julian37 16y ago

"Plus, don’t let a plane take off if someone has checked in luggage but isn’t on board" I'm pretty sure that is already the case, at least for international flights. I've been on numerous planes that got delayed because a passenger didn't show up and the airline had to unload their luggage.

nphase 16y ago

Quick aside: Look at how many hijackings occurred before 2001, especially in the 70s and 80s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijack... Before 9/11, it was just another risk of flying. Now...