6 ms·

Things the TSA doesn't want you to see

143 points by diminish 14y ago

joejohnson 14y ago
Off topic: can you edit the title to "Things the TSA doesn't want you to see"? This is the preferred format for titles beginning with a number: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- rhizome 14y ago
  Thank you for informing us that this is just an "X Things..." post without having to visit the link. ;)
dsr_ 14y ago
Things the TSA doesn't want you to see: this site. (Sorry, couldn't resist... or access.)
- sp332 14y ago
  Try this (you can't see the videos in this version though) https://www.readability.com/articles/bleqmeer https://www.readability.com/articles/bleqmeer
ck2 14y ago
cache http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.elliott.org/blog/5-things-the-tsa-doesnt-want-you-to-see/ http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.elliott.org/blog/5-thin...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
crusso 14y ago
The thing I love about the TSA is that their record of failure is so numerically concrete. FTA: “The experience to date is 50,000 false positives and 16 known terrorists not flagged,” says Thomson. “No known terrorists have ever been flagged.” That's some pretty obvious and epic fail on the part of the Agency. Why hasn't it been eliminated or reformed by now? Government's inability to allow its ideas to fail, or at very least its inability to pivot toward success is so disheartening. This has really been on my mind a lot today. I watched "Waiting for Superman" last night and I can't get the images of the poor kids just looking for a decent public education out of my mind. The crimes against humanity perpetrated upon us with our own tax dollars should really be prosecuted with all vigor.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >That's some pretty obvious and epic fail on the part of the Agency. Why hasn't it been eliminated or reformed by now? My guess is the TSA's long-term purpose is not to prevent terrorism, but to provide the federal government with a means of visibly asserting authority over the travel of citizens (and the opportunity to intervene in the travel of dissidents). Otherwise it makes little sense.
  - crusso 14y ago
    I'm a bit cynical, but I don't think that it's anything quite that sinister. The TSA is just another agency that gives budget dollars and a corresponding amount of power to the bureaucrats and government representatives who run it and a lot of contract dollars to the crony companies that supply it. Because Americans are so terrified of "terrorism", they don't even have to prove efficacy of their methods in order to continue existing. It's a whole lot of easy money for a bunch of pigs with their snouts in the trough.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      As the bankers have well-established over the past few years, money == authority.
      - einhverfr 14y ago
        But the key thing is there is a difference between de facto functions of an organization (DHS is, de facto, an organization which seeks to control the populace) and the intended functions of an organization (DHS is intended to keep us safe. It does this by seeking to control the populace....). The first is the domain of the structuralists in Anthropology. The second is the domain of the politicians.
    - vacri 14y ago
      I was visiting friends near the Mexican border in Arizona and we passed by a compound with literally hundreds of parked border patrol vehicles. I was amazed and said "In order to staff these, they must have thousands of field agents", to which the reply was "they have nothing of the sort - that compound is simply there for the TV cameras, to show 'how serious' they are about border patrol. Very few of those vehicles ever get driven"
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- flipfloproboto 14y ago
  Where is your proof that terrorists have been deterred? Or are you assuming this is something which cannot be disproved? Your argument invokes a logical fallacy, particularly an appeal to fear and an appeal to consequences.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >Your argument invokes a logical fallacy // Which of course doesn't mean that he's wrong.
    - novalis 14y ago
      Actually it does because it is upon that logical fallacy that the counter argument is entirely built upon. In a general way, a logical fallacy would not imply that he was wrong if it was simply acessory or lateral to the issue. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
      - andrewaylett 14y ago
        I don't think you're talking about the same things: a claim of logical fallacy implies that the argument is wrong, but doesn't make any direct claims against the truth of the conclusion. For example, my saying "you should be scared of the TSA, therefore 2+2=4" is fallacious, even though the conclusion is true. That's not to say that making a claim of fallacy isn't an indirect attack on the conclusion, especially when the only arguments supporting that conclusion are fallacious...
      - fabricode 14y ago
        You said: Actually it does [mean he's wrong] because it is upon that logical fallacy that the counter argument is entirely built upon Wrong is the wrong word :) What you're looking for is "invalid". An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows from the premises. In other words, if the premises are true then it cannot be the case that the conclusion is false. Since a logical fallacy adds nothing to an argument, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Since the conclusion can therefore be false, even if the logical fallacy is true, the argument is labeled invalid. Just for completeness... A more strict standard is soundness. An argument is sound if and only if the argument is valid and the premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the conclusion is necessarily true. Obviously, the argument invoking a logical fallacy as its premise is unsound because it is invalid. It is also perfectly possible for the conclusion to be true even though the argument itself is invalid and unsound. If you still would like to apply the label "wrong" to it, then I'd say, "The argument is wrong, even though your conclusion happens to be true." (Note: I can't see the post that started all of this off as it has been deleted, so I'm not making any comment on the truthiness of his/her conclusion)

143 points by diminish 14y ago

Off topic: can you edit the title to "Things the TSA doesn't want you to see"? This is the preferred format for titles beginning with a number: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rhizome 14y ago
Thank you for informing us that this is just an "X Things..." post without having to visit the link. ;)

dsr_ 14y ago

Things the TSA doesn't want you to see: this site. (Sorry, couldn't resist... or access.)

sp332 14y ago
Try this (you can't see the videos in this version though) https://www.readability.com/articles/bleqmeer https://www.readability.com/articles/bleqmeer

ck2 14y ago

cache http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.elliott.org/blog/5-things-the-tsa-doesnt-want-you-to-see/ http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.elliott.org/blog/5-thin...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

crusso 14y ago

The thing I love about the TSA is that their record of failure is so numerically concrete. FTA: “The experience to date is 50,000 false positives and 16 known terrorists not flagged,” says Thomson. “No known terrorists have ever been flagged.” That's some pretty obvious and epic fail on the part of the Agency. Why hasn't it been eliminated or reformed by now? Government's inability to allow its ideas to fail, or at very least its inability to pivot toward success is so disheartening. This has really been on my mind a lot today. I watched "Waiting for Superman" last night and I can't get the images of the poor kids just looking for a decent public education out of my mind. The crimes against humanity perpetrated upon us with our own tax dollars should really be prosecuted with all vigor.

mcantelon 14y ago
>That's some pretty obvious and epic fail on the part of the Agency. Why hasn't it been eliminated or reformed by now? My guess is the TSA's long-term purpose is not to prevent terrorism, but to provide the federal government with a means of visibly asserting authority over the travel of citizens (and the opportunity to intervene in the travel of dissidents). Otherwise it makes little sense.
- crusso 14y ago
  I'm a bit cynical, but I don't think that it's anything quite that sinister. The TSA is just another agency that gives budget dollars and a corresponding amount of power to the bureaucrats and government representatives who run it and a lot of contract dollars to the crony companies that supply it. Because Americans are so terrified of "terrorism", they don't even have to prove efficacy of their methods in order to continue existing. It's a whole lot of easy money for a bunch of pigs with their snouts in the trough.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    As the bankers have well-established over the past few years, money == authority.
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      But the key thing is there is a difference between de facto functions of an organization (DHS is, de facto, an organization which seeks to control the populace) and the intended functions of an organization (DHS is intended to keep us safe. It does this by seeking to control the populace....). The first is the domain of the structuralists in Anthropology. The second is the domain of the politicians.
  - vacri 14y ago
    I was visiting friends near the Mexican border in Arizona and we passed by a compound with literally hundreds of parked border patrol vehicles. I was amazed and said "In order to staff these, they must have thousands of field agents", to which the reply was "they have nothing of the sort - that compound is simply there for the TV cameras, to show 'how serious' they are about border patrol. Very few of those vehicles ever get driven"

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

flipfloproboto 14y ago
Where is your proof that terrorists have been deterred? Or are you assuming this is something which cannot be disproved? Your argument invokes a logical fallacy, particularly an appeal to fear and an appeal to consequences.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >Your argument invokes a logical fallacy // Which of course doesn't mean that he's wrong.
  - novalis 14y ago
    Actually it does because it is upon that logical fallacy that the counter argument is entirely built upon. In a general way, a logical fallacy would not imply that he was wrong if it was simply acessory or lateral to the issue. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
    - andrewaylett 14y ago
      I don't think you're talking about the same things: a claim of logical fallacy implies that the argument is wrong, but doesn't make any direct claims against the truth of the conclusion. For example, my saying "you should be scared of the TSA, therefore 2+2=4" is fallacious, even though the conclusion is true. That's not to say that making a claim of fallacy isn't an indirect attack on the conclusion, especially when the only arguments supporting that conclusion are fallacious...
    - fabricode 14y ago
      You said: Actually it does [mean he's wrong] because it is upon that logical fallacy that the counter argument is entirely built upon Wrong is the wrong word :) What you're looking for is "invalid". An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows from the premises. In other words, if the premises are true then it cannot be the case that the conclusion is false. Since a logical fallacy adds nothing to an argument, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Since the conclusion can therefore be false, even if the logical fallacy is true, the argument is labeled invalid. Just for completeness... A more strict standard is soundness. An argument is sound if and only if the argument is valid and the premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the conclusion is necessarily true. Obviously, the argument invoking a logical fallacy as its premise is unsound because it is invalid. It is also perfectly possible for the conclusion to be true even though the argument itself is invalid and unsound. If you still would like to apply the label "wrong" to it, then I'd say, "The argument is wrong, even though your conclusion happens to be true." (Note: I can't see the post that started all of this off as it has been deleted, so I'm not making any comment on the truthiness of his/her conclusion)