The most dangerous thing, politically speaking, is an unaccountable center of political power. Allegedly the United States government is set up to prevent such a thing from happening. Congress has the power of impeachment of both the President and of Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court has the power to nullify laws that were passed. The President has both enforcement power and veto power.
It is a nice theory, but does not work so well in practice. As it stands now, the congress has ceded almost all of its power to the other branches. What should be accomplished through legislation is instead accomplished by executive order or by judicial fiat. The only power that still remains with congress is that to pass a budget (or even a continuing resolution) and even that was attacked recently with the idea to mint a high denomination platinum coin.
The Department of Homeland Security, perhaps one of the most dangerous departments in the federal government, no longer submits to any sort of checks of authority. According to Infowars, Janet Napolitano is ignoring requests by members of congress to explain the large ammunition purchases by the Department of Homeland Security.
This follows but a few months after John Pistole, director of the TSA, declined to show at a congressional hearing. And this is not the first time that the leadership of the TSA has declined to show, setting rules for their participation that include not allowing critics of the TSA at the hearings.
There is very little accountability in the United States government. But blatant disregard of this magnitude is startlingly new. Only the quasi-independent Federal Reserve has ever been able to disregard the checks and balances up until this point. Moreover, the TSA has even retaliated against elected officials that dared to criticize the TSA. It is clear that in addition to controlling all entry and exit to the country, the DHA is setting itself far above the law.
Showing posts with label TSA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TSA. Show all posts
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Saturday, March 23, 2013
The Dangerous Department of Homeland Security
Libertarian websites, and other concerned allies on this issue, have noticed that the officials at the Department of Homeland Security have purchased an unjustifiably large amount of munitions. Janet Napolitano claims it is for training purposes, but training rounds are the cheapest rounds anyone purchases and hollow point rounds are not used for training.
The obvious conclusion is that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for domestic unrest. But there is another aspect to the Department of Homeland Security that is also of great cause for alarm. It is which sub-agencies form the Department of Homeland Security.
The first departments to note are U. S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These departments are there allegedly to prevent terrorists from entering the United States. What they do is to monitor the goods entering or leaving the United States. This ensures that all tariffs are paid, that drugs are not smuggled in, and that intellectual property is not smuggled out.
The next agency of note is the United States Border Patrol, a sub-agency of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This agency monitors all people entering the United States by land. The U. S. Customs and Border Protection monitors all people leaving the United States.
The Transportation Security Agency, officially charged with protecting the airlines from those who might seek to conduct terrorist activities while in the air. Actually what they do is to track all people who fly, and to forbid certain people who have their names on the often denied "no fly list." Anyone who might seek to leave the United States by air must pass through the Transportation Security Agency. The Transportation Security Agency only monitors those leaving, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement monitors those entering the United States by air.
Then there is the U. S. Coast Guard. Originally it was part of the Department of Transportation that occasionally worked as part of the Department of the Navy. It was moved from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. Any activity on the shores of the United States is under their jurisdiction. It conducts maritime law enforcement, migrant interdiction, and drug interdiction.
This one agency, the Department of Homeland Security, therefore monitors the entrance or exit of all people or goods that cross the United States Border, by air, sea, or land. Anyone who wishes to enter or leave has to deal with some agency within the Department of Homeland Security, and has to deal with some agency if any goods are to enter or leave as well.
It is the ultimate dream of those in power, to have complete control over entrance or exit over a country. The Department of Homeland Security is that ultimate dream made real. If there is unrest, as the leadership of that department obviously anticipates, that department therefore also has the authority to close all the borders.
The obvious conclusion is that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for domestic unrest. But there is another aspect to the Department of Homeland Security that is also of great cause for alarm. It is which sub-agencies form the Department of Homeland Security.
The first departments to note are U. S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These departments are there allegedly to prevent terrorists from entering the United States. What they do is to monitor the goods entering or leaving the United States. This ensures that all tariffs are paid, that drugs are not smuggled in, and that intellectual property is not smuggled out.
The next agency of note is the United States Border Patrol, a sub-agency of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This agency monitors all people entering the United States by land. The U. S. Customs and Border Protection monitors all people leaving the United States.
The Transportation Security Agency, officially charged with protecting the airlines from those who might seek to conduct terrorist activities while in the air. Actually what they do is to track all people who fly, and to forbid certain people who have their names on the often denied "no fly list." Anyone who might seek to leave the United States by air must pass through the Transportation Security Agency. The Transportation Security Agency only monitors those leaving, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement monitors those entering the United States by air.
Then there is the U. S. Coast Guard. Originally it was part of the Department of Transportation that occasionally worked as part of the Department of the Navy. It was moved from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. Any activity on the shores of the United States is under their jurisdiction. It conducts maritime law enforcement, migrant interdiction, and drug interdiction.
This one agency, the Department of Homeland Security, therefore monitors the entrance or exit of all people or goods that cross the United States Border, by air, sea, or land. Anyone who wishes to enter or leave has to deal with some agency within the Department of Homeland Security, and has to deal with some agency if any goods are to enter or leave as well.
It is the ultimate dream of those in power, to have complete control over entrance or exit over a country. The Department of Homeland Security is that ultimate dream made real. If there is unrest, as the leadership of that department obviously anticipates, that department therefore also has the authority to close all the borders.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
TSA won't molest kids anymore ... maybe
The TSA has recently changed the rules for subjecting minors to the highly invasive pat-down that is given to those who opt out of the Advanced Imaging Technology (formerly Whole Body Imaging.) The problem is, according to the TSA, this doesn't mean anything is actually changing.
The procedure is changing except for when it isn't?
Another problem with this announcement is that it is not the first time the TSA has made this announcement. There seems to be a real recidivism problem with the TSA, their policies, or their agents. The stories about the TSA and the invasiveness of their pat-downs are coming faster and more detailed, with the comments the stories receive showing the public gives more credibility to the passengers than to the TSA.
There is something deeply wrong when an agency has to promise to not molest children. There is something even more deeply wrong when an agency has to promise to not do it anymore. The recent rule change is the TSA promising to stop molesting children - unless the front line agent feels it is absolutely necessary.
Please understand that this isn’t a free pass. TSA will always incorporate random and unpredictable security measures and nobody is guaranteed expedited screening.
The procedure is changing except for when it isn't?
Another problem with this announcement is that it is not the first time the TSA has made this announcement. There seems to be a real recidivism problem with the TSA, their policies, or their agents. The stories about the TSA and the invasiveness of their pat-downs are coming faster and more detailed, with the comments the stories receive showing the public gives more credibility to the passengers than to the TSA.
There is something deeply wrong when an agency has to promise to not molest children. There is something even more deeply wrong when an agency has to promise to not do it anymore. The recent rule change is the TSA promising to stop molesting children - unless the front line agent feels it is absolutely necessary.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Freedom is Slavery
The United States is, of course, a free country.
There is evidence that the law serves the government instead of serving the people, that those who irritate authority will be punished without regards to law, and that when police misconduct becomes so blatant that it cannot be ignored the offenders will not be punished. But the United States is still a free country.
We have freedom of movement in this country. True, the screening standards by the TSA are secret so those who travel cannot make an informed decision before entering the airport about whether or not they wish to submit to the intensive physical search. The intensive search, compared often to molestation or rape, is the alternative for those who do not wish to submit to a nude screening. Those who, upon finding out what the search entails decide to not be searched, instead of merely being denied entry to their flight, are threatened with a fine of approximately $10,000 and sometimes arrested. When someone is giving the choice of submitting to sexual advances or being hurt for failing to do so, it is considered sexual assault. But the United States is still a free country.
Of course, there are choices other than flying. One can avoid the TSA by taking the bus, or one can drive. Soon all methods of transportation will be under TSA control and all citizens will need TSA permission to go anywhere. But the United States is still a free country.
Originally the Interstate Commerce Clause was interpreted to only apply to actual interstate commerce. In the 1930s the Supreme Court found an interpretation whereby any activity that impacts interstate commerce can be regulated under that clause. Any item grown for personal consumption is something that would otherwise be purchased, and if purchased might possibly be purchased from someone out of state. That is one of the alleged constitutional supports for the drug war. Now, with the healthcare reform passed by President Obama, even even inactivity is considered activity with regards to the commerce clause. The government has the power to dictate both what we purchase AND what we do not purchase. But the United States is still a free country.
Since the United States is a capitalist country, people are still free to engage in many business opportunities in spite of the restrictions of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Of course there are many licensing requirements that prevent people from entering many fields that would allow people to rise out of poverty. There are still more fields than can ever be covered by piecemeal regulations, so sweeping legislation has been enacted to cover all fields and limit or prevent the ability of the people to conduct business. But the United States is still a free country.
The Third Amendment to the Constitution was written to secure people from being compelled to act as agents of the government. When it was written there were few ways in which that could happen, the most common was forcing people to quarter troops. Today there are many more ways in which a person can be forced to act on behalf of the government. There is no proof that Joseph Nacchio of Qwest was indicted for refusing to be a government spy. Anyone who thinks so is a conspiracy theorist. And there is no proof that the women who accused Julian Assange had political motivations. It is true that due to the proliferation of laws, anyone can be accused at any time for unknown and obscure crimes, and that the government could use that power to punish those whose actions are otherwise untouchable. But the United States is still a free country.
When those issues are brought up, people insist that they are all necessary to maintain freedom in the United States, because otherwise there would be anarchy. Someone, somewhere, will describe each of those intrusions as a necessary price to pay for freedom. People are required to submit because of the social contract which is the price people pay for living in society. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." With all these freedoms, because the United States is still a free country, it certainly is true that Freedom is Slavery.
There is evidence that the law serves the government instead of serving the people, that those who irritate authority will be punished without regards to law, and that when police misconduct becomes so blatant that it cannot be ignored the offenders will not be punished. But the United States is still a free country.
We have freedom of movement in this country. True, the screening standards by the TSA are secret so those who travel cannot make an informed decision before entering the airport about whether or not they wish to submit to the intensive physical search. The intensive search, compared often to molestation or rape, is the alternative for those who do not wish to submit to a nude screening. Those who, upon finding out what the search entails decide to not be searched, instead of merely being denied entry to their flight, are threatened with a fine of approximately $10,000 and sometimes arrested. When someone is giving the choice of submitting to sexual advances or being hurt for failing to do so, it is considered sexual assault. But the United States is still a free country.
Of course, there are choices other than flying. One can avoid the TSA by taking the bus, or one can drive. Soon all methods of transportation will be under TSA control and all citizens will need TSA permission to go anywhere. But the United States is still a free country.
Originally the Interstate Commerce Clause was interpreted to only apply to actual interstate commerce. In the 1930s the Supreme Court found an interpretation whereby any activity that impacts interstate commerce can be regulated under that clause. Any item grown for personal consumption is something that would otherwise be purchased, and if purchased might possibly be purchased from someone out of state. That is one of the alleged constitutional supports for the drug war. Now, with the healthcare reform passed by President Obama, even even inactivity is considered activity with regards to the commerce clause. The government has the power to dictate both what we purchase AND what we do not purchase. But the United States is still a free country.
Since the United States is a capitalist country, people are still free to engage in many business opportunities in spite of the restrictions of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Of course there are many licensing requirements that prevent people from entering many fields that would allow people to rise out of poverty. There are still more fields than can ever be covered by piecemeal regulations, so sweeping legislation has been enacted to cover all fields and limit or prevent the ability of the people to conduct business. But the United States is still a free country.
The Third Amendment to the Constitution was written to secure people from being compelled to act as agents of the government. When it was written there were few ways in which that could happen, the most common was forcing people to quarter troops. Today there are many more ways in which a person can be forced to act on behalf of the government. There is no proof that Joseph Nacchio of Qwest was indicted for refusing to be a government spy. Anyone who thinks so is a conspiracy theorist. And there is no proof that the women who accused Julian Assange had political motivations. It is true that due to the proliferation of laws, anyone can be accused at any time for unknown and obscure crimes, and that the government could use that power to punish those whose actions are otherwise untouchable. But the United States is still a free country.
When those issues are brought up, people insist that they are all necessary to maintain freedom in the United States, because otherwise there would be anarchy. Someone, somewhere, will describe each of those intrusions as a necessary price to pay for freedom. People are required to submit because of the social contract which is the price people pay for living in society. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." With all these freedoms, because the United States is still a free country, it certainly is true that Freedom is Slavery.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
National Opt Out Day
In response to the TSA giving passengers a choice between either being electronically strip searched or an overly aggressive pat-down, and threatening to fine those who upon discovering the choice decide to leave the airport, there is an event, National Opt Out Day. Those who have been protesting the TSA for years welcome everyone else to the protest, and are heartened to find out that there really is a limit to how much the American people will endure.
An “opt out” is when a passenger chooses to not undergo a virtual strip search, and instead endures the punitive pat-down instead. National Opt Out Day is a day when as many people as possible are encouraged to opt for the punitive pat-down instead of the virtual strip search. The participants are also supposed to insist on the optional private pat-down room.
The effects of a sufficiently large number of passengers doing this will be chaos. Checkpoints have a very limited number of private pat-down rooms, and a limited number of screeners to perform all of these examinations. Given that the standard operating procedure of the TSA is to put people into the virtual strip search machine whenever it is available, even if there are passengers waiting for the pat-down, this will create tremendous delays and tie up large amounts of TSA resources.
One possible outcome is that those who opt-out will simply have to wait until they receive their pat-down, even if that means they miss their flight. Another possible outcome is that the TSA will anticipate this by adding many additional screeners for that day and setting up impromptu private screening rooms. Another possible outcome is that the TSA will simply not operate the virtual strip search machines, although there is evidence that they absolutely will not back down at all.
For those who wish for an entertaining way to opt-out, there is an entertaining way to do so.
It has been determined that the technology does not penetrate skin very deeply, and as a result has a very difficult time scanning through leather. So in order to opt-out without actually saying "opt-out", the solution is to wear nothing but leather. This involves leather shirt, pants, and underwear.
A leather jacket is insufficient because the TSA requires passengers to remove jackets and sweaters. But if a sweater is worn as a shirt, the TSA will allow the passenger to leave it on. So the shirt and pants must both be leather without a jacket. As an additional layer of protection leather underwear will guarantee privacy protection. Being thick, when the TSA attempts to grope the passenger, leather provides a layer of additional protection by virtue of the thickness, giving protection from all but the most determined groping. All these items can be easily purchased on Amazon as a way to celebrate National Opt Out Day.
An “opt out” is when a passenger chooses to not undergo a virtual strip search, and instead endures the punitive pat-down instead. National Opt Out Day is a day when as many people as possible are encouraged to opt for the punitive pat-down instead of the virtual strip search. The participants are also supposed to insist on the optional private pat-down room.
The effects of a sufficiently large number of passengers doing this will be chaos. Checkpoints have a very limited number of private pat-down rooms, and a limited number of screeners to perform all of these examinations. Given that the standard operating procedure of the TSA is to put people into the virtual strip search machine whenever it is available, even if there are passengers waiting for the pat-down, this will create tremendous delays and tie up large amounts of TSA resources.
One possible outcome is that those who opt-out will simply have to wait until they receive their pat-down, even if that means they miss their flight. Another possible outcome is that the TSA will anticipate this by adding many additional screeners for that day and setting up impromptu private screening rooms. Another possible outcome is that the TSA will simply not operate the virtual strip search machines, although there is evidence that they absolutely will not back down at all.
For those who wish for an entertaining way to opt-out, there is an entertaining way to do so.
It has been determined that the technology does not penetrate skin very deeply, and as a result has a very difficult time scanning through leather. So in order to opt-out without actually saying "opt-out", the solution is to wear nothing but leather. This involves leather shirt, pants, and underwear.
A leather jacket is insufficient because the TSA requires passengers to remove jackets and sweaters. But if a sweater is worn as a shirt, the TSA will allow the passenger to leave it on. So the shirt and pants must both be leather without a jacket. As an additional layer of protection leather underwear will guarantee privacy protection. Being thick, when the TSA attempts to grope the passenger, leather provides a layer of additional protection by virtue of the thickness, giving protection from all but the most determined groping. All these items can be easily purchased on Amazon as a way to celebrate National Opt Out Day.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The TSA goes even farther
The leadership of the TSA is quite aware of the complaints people have against their Advanced Imaging Technology, formerly Whole Body Imaging. Both the Millimeter Wave and the Backscatter X-Ray devices are virtual strip searches, and at best are on very shaky constitutional ground, and the Backscatter X-Ray technology favored by the TSA also produces deadly ionizing radiation. The TSA is also determined to perform these virtual strip searches on minors.
To quell public discontent, the TSA implemented an opt-out program where someone can go through a Walk-Through Metal Detector and be frisked. If an airport does not have an electronic strip search, or a passenger is not selected for it, the metal detector without a frisking is sufficient to clear a person - but if a person actively does not want to be strip searched suddenly the metal detector is not sufficient to clear a person. This has led to accusations that the frisking is retaliatory for those who do not want to be strip searched.
In spite of public opposition, the electronic strip searches are being implemented at more airports. Assurances by the TSA that the searches are completely safe, that the images cannot be stored, and that they aren’t as revealing as feared, have been shown to be false.
People were still opting out of the electronic strip search; some for safety reason, some for constitutional reasons, and some because they did not want their children to be imaged nude. So the TSA has instituted a much more aggressive frisking for anyone who exercises their right to opt out of being strip searched.
There is new information. Although it is only in the rumor stage, apparently it may soon be the case where opt-out is more difficult, to the point where they are as optional as the "optional" showing of ID to the Travel Document Checker, and some rumors that light pat-downs may become mandatory for everyone. There have not yet been any official announcements, but reports from travelers who heard this from TSOs indicates that the TSA is going even farther is violating the rights of all people guilty of wanting to get from one location to another quickly. The frisking of passengers is to get even more intimate than the already recognized "enhanced pat down". There are even reports of the hands of TSOs going inside the clothing of travelers.
It seemed impossible, but the TSA has made flying even worse, even more uncomfortable, for the public. There is, however, a way to deal with this.
Travelers should always opt out of being strip-searched. When the TSO orders the pat-down, the traveler should be sure to demand that a Law Enforcement Official and a video camera both be present at the time so that sexual assault charges can be filed immediately. Above all, the traveler should always be as polite as possible because any rudeness is all the excuse government goons need to say that the traveler was the cause of any disruption and to have the traveler arrested instead of the TSO.
If the TSO forbids an opt-out, which they should not do but enforcement on the front lines is erratic and up to the unpredictable whims of the front line agents, and the traveler has any minor children also traveling, the TSOs at that location should be reported for child pornography.
It is time to take the war back to the TSA. It is well known that the mindset of the TSA is that every traveler is a potential criminal and should be treated like a suspected criminal. It is time for the TSA to have their employees treated like the criminals they are and report them to law enforcement at every opportunity.
UPDATE: Ironically, the next attack appears to be through parcels shipped by air and not on a person but the response by the TSA is to be more aggressive searches of passengers. Although there is no connection between the premise and the conclusion that is standard operating procedure for the TSA.
To quell public discontent, the TSA implemented an opt-out program where someone can go through a Walk-Through Metal Detector and be frisked. If an airport does not have an electronic strip search, or a passenger is not selected for it, the metal detector without a frisking is sufficient to clear a person - but if a person actively does not want to be strip searched suddenly the metal detector is not sufficient to clear a person. This has led to accusations that the frisking is retaliatory for those who do not want to be strip searched.
In spite of public opposition, the electronic strip searches are being implemented at more airports. Assurances by the TSA that the searches are completely safe, that the images cannot be stored, and that they aren’t as revealing as feared, have been shown to be false.
People were still opting out of the electronic strip search; some for safety reason, some for constitutional reasons, and some because they did not want their children to be imaged nude. So the TSA has instituted a much more aggressive frisking for anyone who exercises their right to opt out of being strip searched.
There is new information. Although it is only in the rumor stage, apparently it may soon be the case where opt-out is more difficult, to the point where they are as optional as the "optional" showing of ID to the Travel Document Checker, and some rumors that light pat-downs may become mandatory for everyone. There have not yet been any official announcements, but reports from travelers who heard this from TSOs indicates that the TSA is going even farther is violating the rights of all people guilty of wanting to get from one location to another quickly. The frisking of passengers is to get even more intimate than the already recognized "enhanced pat down". There are even reports of the hands of TSOs going inside the clothing of travelers.
It seemed impossible, but the TSA has made flying even worse, even more uncomfortable, for the public. There is, however, a way to deal with this.
Travelers should always opt out of being strip-searched. When the TSO orders the pat-down, the traveler should be sure to demand that a Law Enforcement Official and a video camera both be present at the time so that sexual assault charges can be filed immediately. Above all, the traveler should always be as polite as possible because any rudeness is all the excuse government goons need to say that the traveler was the cause of any disruption and to have the traveler arrested instead of the TSO.
If the TSO forbids an opt-out, which they should not do but enforcement on the front lines is erratic and up to the unpredictable whims of the front line agents, and the traveler has any minor children also traveling, the TSOs at that location should be reported for child pornography.
It is time to take the war back to the TSA. It is well known that the mindset of the TSA is that every traveler is a potential criminal and should be treated like a suspected criminal. It is time for the TSA to have their employees treated like the criminals they are and report them to law enforcement at every opportunity.
UPDATE: Ironically, the next attack appears to be through parcels shipped by air and not on a person but the response by the TSA is to be more aggressive searches of passengers. Although there is no connection between the premise and the conclusion that is standard operating procedure for the TSA.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
And the TSA actually reponds
In the blog entry The TSA Wants you Dead, strong accusations were made against the TSA based upon this blog entry at the TSA blog. The accusations were quite harsh, and quickly picked up on by critics of the TSA in the comments section of that entry of the TSA blog as well as on the Flyer Talk Forums Travel Safety and Security forum. The general harshness of the response has prompted a rapid response by the TSA.
The argument made by the TSA is that the dosage of X-Ray in an X-Ray backscatter is so low that it is safe. This ignores a couple of scientific facts: first, no level of ionizing radiation is actually safe, merely that some doses are safer than others, and also that ionizing radiation is cumulative so even safe doses contribute to a lifetime unsafe level.
The TSA spokesperson Blogger Bob tried to make this argument by referencing many experts who argued that the dosage was relatively safe if it provides a definite benefit. There are constitutional and practical arguments about the security benefits of backscatter X-Ray, but the most telling is that all the arguments are based on the option being the choice between not having the security at all or having backscatter X-Ray along with the risks. That is not a true choice.
Putting aside the constitutional arguments (it doesn't), putting aside the argument over whether this device actually increases security in the first place (it doesn't) there’s still one safety argument not made.
All of the supporting information that was made available, on the links that worked and didn’t require a fee to access, said that the dosage was relatively safe, but didn’t say it was absolutely safe. The supporting information didn’t comment on the safety of Backscatter X-Ray as compared to Millimeters Wave. It appears that the TSA, when seeking supporting information, presented the choice of "backscatter or no security" when the choice is actually "backscatter or mmw or no security".
With millimeter wave technology, the only problems are that it is unconstitutional and that it provides minimal security in exchange for the cost of implementation. In terms of the health of the traveler, millimeter wave technology is completely safe at the dosages required.
So given that a completely safe equivalent alternative exists why then is the TSA going ahead with backscatter instead of millimeter wave?
It has been a suggested that the choice to use backscatter has to do with greasing the right palms, that it has something to do with who currently employs Chertoff. Is simple corruption the reason the TSA is using hazardous procedures and putting the health of the traveling public at risk?
The argument made by the TSA is that the dosage of X-Ray in an X-Ray backscatter is so low that it is safe. This ignores a couple of scientific facts: first, no level of ionizing radiation is actually safe, merely that some doses are safer than others, and also that ionizing radiation is cumulative so even safe doses contribute to a lifetime unsafe level.
The TSA spokesperson Blogger Bob tried to make this argument by referencing many experts who argued that the dosage was relatively safe if it provides a definite benefit. There are constitutional and practical arguments about the security benefits of backscatter X-Ray, but the most telling is that all the arguments are based on the option being the choice between not having the security at all or having backscatter X-Ray along with the risks. That is not a true choice.
Putting aside the constitutional arguments (it doesn't), putting aside the argument over whether this device actually increases security in the first place (it doesn't) there’s still one safety argument not made.
All of the supporting information that was made available, on the links that worked and didn’t require a fee to access, said that the dosage was relatively safe, but didn’t say it was absolutely safe. The supporting information didn’t comment on the safety of Backscatter X-Ray as compared to Millimeters Wave. It appears that the TSA, when seeking supporting information, presented the choice of "backscatter or no security" when the choice is actually "backscatter or mmw or no security".
With millimeter wave technology, the only problems are that it is unconstitutional and that it provides minimal security in exchange for the cost of implementation. In terms of the health of the traveler, millimeter wave technology is completely safe at the dosages required.
So given that a completely safe equivalent alternative exists why then is the TSA going ahead with backscatter instead of millimeter wave?
It has been a suggested that the choice to use backscatter has to do with greasing the right palms, that it has something to do with who currently employs Chertoff. Is simple corruption the reason the TSA is using hazardous procedures and putting the health of the traveling public at risk?
Friday, March 05, 2010
The TSA wants you dead
When the TSA first introduced the concept of Whole Body Imaging, since renamed Advanced Imaging Technology, there were many complaints. Many moral, legal, and constitutional issues were raised as to why Whole Body Imaging was a very bad idea. There were also safety concerns, but it was pointed out that if the topic is confined to milimeter waves then they are actually safe.
It was also pointed out that said explanation does not apply to backscatter x-ray technology.
It was explained that one of them was non-ionizing radiation, heat radiation. The other is ionizing radiation, cumulative radiation. One of them is safe because the only danger is in dosage and the moment the source is removed the exposure is over. The other is unsafe because each exposure adds to previous exposures, which is why doctors try to be sparing in the use of x-rays.
So what does the TSA do in response? The TSA is expanding the use of backscatter. Not mmw, but backscatter.
It is bad enough that the TSA has a perverted desire to strip search all passengers, on the premise that we are all criminals who have not yet been caught. It is bad enough that the TSA is going to use this same technology on children in violation of child pornography laws. But now the TSA has decided that in addition to violating our own fourth and fifth amendment rights that THEY WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE CANCER.
And the ironic point is that these security measures aren't effective to anyone wearing leather.
These questions were posted on the TSA blog, but the primary blogger - Blogger Bob - has not been willing to answer any questions on this subject.
How long until this abomination of an agency is dismantled and the employees are put on trial for treason? The Nuremberg defense is not supposed to be admissible in any court, and whatever constitutional basis there may have been in theory for this agency has long ago eroded by the TSA's unconstitutional terrorist activities in practice.
It was also pointed out that said explanation does not apply to backscatter x-ray technology.
It was explained that one of them was non-ionizing radiation, heat radiation. The other is ionizing radiation, cumulative radiation. One of them is safe because the only danger is in dosage and the moment the source is removed the exposure is over. The other is unsafe because each exposure adds to previous exposures, which is why doctors try to be sparing in the use of x-rays.
So what does the TSA do in response? The TSA is expanding the use of backscatter. Not mmw, but backscatter.
It is bad enough that the TSA has a perverted desire to strip search all passengers, on the premise that we are all criminals who have not yet been caught. It is bad enough that the TSA is going to use this same technology on children in violation of child pornography laws. But now the TSA has decided that in addition to violating our own fourth and fifth amendment rights that THEY WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE CANCER.
And the ironic point is that these security measures aren't effective to anyone wearing leather.
These questions were posted on the TSA blog, but the primary blogger - Blogger Bob - has not been willing to answer any questions on this subject.
How long until this abomination of an agency is dismantled and the employees are put on trial for treason? The Nuremberg defense is not supposed to be admissible in any court, and whatever constitutional basis there may have been in theory for this agency has long ago eroded by the TSA's unconstitutional terrorist activities in practice.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
TSA follies
It has been a difficult season for the Transportation Security Agency.
December started with a leaked TSA screening manual, unredacted, appearing on Wikileaks. Following shortly after that was a particularly inept attempt at a home vasectomy which unfortunately took place on an airplane. The TSA tried to claim credit for the passengers stopping the bomber by saying that the fellow passengers are a "layer of security", even though these same passengers are the ones that the TSA considers to be terrorist suspects, guilty until proven innocent.
Even though the Whole Body Imaging would not have found these insufficient explosives, the move to install them at every airport was accelerated, along with additional proposed nonsensical rules such as having nothing on the lap and not leaving the seat for the entire last hour of the flight. Fast on the heels of the move to accelearate Whole Body Imaging, the news discovered two separate sexual improprieties involving the TSA.
First there was the TSO who was found to be a child molester, seeking a "sex slave" from a girl he had groped. Then there was the TSO who was arrested for posession of child pornography. While normally a persons criminal acts do not reflect on their employer, this is the employer who wants these deviants to perform virtual strip searches of travelers - including children.
So what of actually stopping actual threats? After all, one might actually forgive the TSA for these follies if they contributed to security, but that does not seem to be the case. It was discovered that yet another child was on the extra screening selectee list, a feeding tube was thrown away even though it was medically necessity, and someone who was so dangerous he studied his Arabic homework in an airport was subjected to extra screening. Not able to find actual criminals, they pretended to find one by planting drugs to find in the bag of an innocent traveler as part of a "training exercise." But they failed to stop a fake federal marshal who was allowed through security with his firearm in order to place an unwilling passenger on a plane to another country.
Perhaps it is time to replace the TSA with an actual security agency, before the move to unionize the screeners gains any momentum.
December started with a leaked TSA screening manual, unredacted, appearing on Wikileaks. Following shortly after that was a particularly inept attempt at a home vasectomy which unfortunately took place on an airplane. The TSA tried to claim credit for the passengers stopping the bomber by saying that the fellow passengers are a "layer of security", even though these same passengers are the ones that the TSA considers to be terrorist suspects, guilty until proven innocent.
Even though the Whole Body Imaging would not have found these insufficient explosives, the move to install them at every airport was accelerated, along with additional proposed nonsensical rules such as having nothing on the lap and not leaving the seat for the entire last hour of the flight. Fast on the heels of the move to accelearate Whole Body Imaging, the news discovered two separate sexual improprieties involving the TSA.
First there was the TSO who was found to be a child molester, seeking a "sex slave" from a girl he had groped. Then there was the TSO who was arrested for posession of child pornography. While normally a persons criminal acts do not reflect on their employer, this is the employer who wants these deviants to perform virtual strip searches of travelers - including children.
So what of actually stopping actual threats? After all, one might actually forgive the TSA for these follies if they contributed to security, but that does not seem to be the case. It was discovered that yet another child was on the extra screening selectee list, a feeding tube was thrown away even though it was medically necessity, and someone who was so dangerous he studied his Arabic homework in an airport was subjected to extra screening. Not able to find actual criminals, they pretended to find one by planting drugs to find in the bag of an innocent traveler as part of a "training exercise." But they failed to stop a fake federal marshal who was allowed through security with his firearm in order to place an unwilling passenger on a plane to another country.
Perhaps it is time to replace the TSA with an actual security agency, before the move to unionize the screeners gains any momentum.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
TSA Voyeurism
As any engineer can explain, any capability that has been downgraded can be re-upgraded. Any capability that has been disabled is a capability that can be re-enabled. And that applies to the whole body imaging technology of the Transportation Security Administration.
Images that had been approved by the TSA were released showing more detail than had been previously admitted to, causing a reaction described here, but it turns out the images were far more revealing.
First there was a video released to Liveleak showing that the TSA has the ability to magnify those downgraded images, providing much more detail than the released sample images. What, exactly, does the TSA need that much resolution for? To count body hairs?
Then there are the images revealed by Stephan Kinsella at the Lew Rockwell blog.
A not suitable for work image
According to the TSA, the Whole Body Imagers do not reveal very much detail. The images are safe for Reader’s Digest and could even be posted in pre-schools. That is an exaggeration for even the downgraded images. That is an absurdity for the images that the Screener actually sees.
It is fascinating that these better images came out now. First the TSA had one of their security screening manuals leaked. Then they allowed the Nigerian crotch-bomber to fly – while it is true that the flight did not originate in the United States, the United States government received and approved the passenger list before the plane even took off. Then to respond the TSA harassed some bloggers and got caught. Then these more revealing images were released, including a video.
While Britain is undergoing a rather unfortunate bout of sex predator hysteria, causing parents to be considered suspects just for wanting to see their own kids in a school play, the hysteria there has had the beneficial side effect of having the government declare that the machines cannot be used on children. The TSA has admitted that minors are subject to full screening.
Finally, in spite of the many pronouncements about the medically safe millimeter wave technology being used, it appears that the TSA is also deploying unsafe X-Ray technology along side the millimeter wave technology, and that the person being screened is not likely to know which is being used. The only issues with millimeter wave technology are legal and constitutional. The only issues with X-Ray technology are legal, constitutional, and medical!
The TSA is being shown to the public for what it is, and it is ugly.
Images that had been approved by the TSA were released showing more detail than had been previously admitted to, causing a reaction described here, but it turns out the images were far more revealing.
First there was a video released to Liveleak showing that the TSA has the ability to magnify those downgraded images, providing much more detail than the released sample images. What, exactly, does the TSA need that much resolution for? To count body hairs?
Then there are the images revealed by Stephan Kinsella at the Lew Rockwell blog.
A not suitable for work image
According to the TSA, the Whole Body Imagers do not reveal very much detail. The images are safe for Reader’s Digest and could even be posted in pre-schools. That is an exaggeration for even the downgraded images. That is an absurdity for the images that the Screener actually sees.
It is fascinating that these better images came out now. First the TSA had one of their security screening manuals leaked. Then they allowed the Nigerian crotch-bomber to fly – while it is true that the flight did not originate in the United States, the United States government received and approved the passenger list before the plane even took off. Then to respond the TSA harassed some bloggers and got caught. Then these more revealing images were released, including a video.
While Britain is undergoing a rather unfortunate bout of sex predator hysteria, causing parents to be considered suspects just for wanting to see their own kids in a school play, the hysteria there has had the beneficial side effect of having the government declare that the machines cannot be used on children. The TSA has admitted that minors are subject to full screening.
Finally, in spite of the many pronouncements about the medically safe millimeter wave technology being used, it appears that the TSA is also deploying unsafe X-Ray technology along side the millimeter wave technology, and that the person being screened is not likely to know which is being used. The only issues with millimeter wave technology are legal and constitutional. The only issues with X-Ray technology are legal, constitutional, and medical!
The TSA is being shown to the public for what it is, and it is ugly.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The TSA
Times have been difficult for the public relations department of the TSA. A story was released on CNN describing the MMW imaging system being introduced as a new security measure. Included in the CNN story was an image as the TSA screener would see.
This image was considerably more graphic than the one the TSA has been using to assure everyone that there was nothing improper going on with the imaging system, that this was not an electronic strip search, that the images were "family safe" and could be used "on the cover of Reader's Digest."
Scanner Images - NSFW
The image on the left is the one provided by the TSA. The image on the right is the one provided by CNN. The only change to the image is to make the CNN image larger to be of comparable size to the TSA image - meaning that even when smaller the CNN image showed considerably more detail than the TSA wanted the American public to know about.
The TSA spokespeople assure the traveling public that the capability of the computers to store those images has been disabled. As any technical person knows, that the capability exists means that it can be reenabled at any time with no difficulty. The assurance that the capability is currently turned off offers no reassurance to anyone who understands how computers work. This capability is turned off as long as the public is worried, and can be turned on at any time.
Because the images were so graphic, a major concern was whether or not children will be subjected to these searches. As it turns out, Children will be screened, although any informed parent may choose to opt their child out of MMW screening to opt for a frisking instead. Any child old enough to stand unassisted with hands raised will be a possible sbject for this screening.
This makes the TSA the world's foremost child pornographer. Every single TSO who works around one of these machines could be considered a criminal for their participation in this procedure. Every TSO who is in a position of authority of them, going all the way up the chain of command to the head of the TSA (and higher) is potentially liable for conspiracy to and aiding and abetting child pornography.
The TSA is already seen as criminal by most people Apparently it was decided that the reputation of the TSA wasn't bad enough in the eyes of the public. Those who work there are already seen as criminals. Now those who work there risk being seen as sex offenders.
This image was considerably more graphic than the one the TSA has been using to assure everyone that there was nothing improper going on with the imaging system, that this was not an electronic strip search, that the images were "family safe" and could be used "on the cover of Reader's Digest."
Scanner Images - NSFW
The image on the left is the one provided by the TSA. The image on the right is the one provided by CNN. The only change to the image is to make the CNN image larger to be of comparable size to the TSA image - meaning that even when smaller the CNN image showed considerably more detail than the TSA wanted the American public to know about.
The TSA spokespeople assure the traveling public that the capability of the computers to store those images has been disabled. As any technical person knows, that the capability exists means that it can be reenabled at any time with no difficulty. The assurance that the capability is currently turned off offers no reassurance to anyone who understands how computers work. This capability is turned off as long as the public is worried, and can be turned on at any time.
Because the images were so graphic, a major concern was whether or not children will be subjected to these searches. As it turns out, Children will be screened, although any informed parent may choose to opt their child out of MMW screening to opt for a frisking instead. Any child old enough to stand unassisted with hands raised will be a possible sbject for this screening.
This makes the TSA the world's foremost child pornographer. Every single TSO who works around one of these machines could be considered a criminal for their participation in this procedure. Every TSO who is in a position of authority of them, going all the way up the chain of command to the head of the TSA (and higher) is potentially liable for conspiracy to and aiding and abetting child pornography.
The TSA is already seen as criminal by most people Apparently it was decided that the reputation of the TSA wasn't bad enough in the eyes of the public. Those who work there are already seen as criminals. Now those who work there risk being seen as sex offenders.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Bugger the TSA part 2
The TSA Blog has answered some of the questions put to them from Bugger the TSA, but their answers and subsequent actions have raised more questions. So for those who wish to force answers, here are additional questions that can be used.
1. The Blog Team has stated that those who refuse to show ID will not be allowed access to the terminals. TSOs who write comments have stated otherwise. Who is correct?
2. Given the new ID requirement, you have stated that your name won't pe but on a terrorist watch list if you forget your ID. Will it be put there if you politely refuse to show ID?
3. Is a person who politely refuses to show ID more dangerous than someone who forgot his ID?
4. If someone is barred for politely refusing to show ID, and someone else is allowed access for claiming to have forgotten ID when that someone else hasn't, isn't that a censoring of political opinions?
5. Is there a single authoritative list of rules that passengers must obey to quickly and efficiently get through the TSA checkpoints? (Thanks to blogger Phil)
6. Please reconcile the mandatory showing of ID with C.F.R. 49 § 1540.5. (Thanks to blogger Trollkiller)
7. How can someone find out if he's on the watch list? What is the procedure to be taken off the watch list or the no fly list?
8. How do the "on the spot" fines align with the Administrative Procedures Act? How does doubling of the fines for those who ask how to context fines align with the Administrative Procedures Act?
9. Why does the TSA care if a domestic passenger (not an overseas passenger) is carrying a large amount of cash?
10. Given that the TSA is supposed to guard access to the sterile areas of the airport, what is the legal basis for having passive MMW technology installed in other areas of the airport? Why are those monitoring the screens not sheltered from public view?
1. The Blog Team has stated that those who refuse to show ID will not be allowed access to the terminals. TSOs who write comments have stated otherwise. Who is correct?
2. Given the new ID requirement, you have stated that your name won't pe but on a terrorist watch list if you forget your ID. Will it be put there if you politely refuse to show ID?
3. Is a person who politely refuses to show ID more dangerous than someone who forgot his ID?
4. If someone is barred for politely refusing to show ID, and someone else is allowed access for claiming to have forgotten ID when that someone else hasn't, isn't that a censoring of political opinions?
5. Is there a single authoritative list of rules that passengers must obey to quickly and efficiently get through the TSA checkpoints? (Thanks to blogger Phil)
6. Please reconcile the mandatory showing of ID with C.F.R. 49 § 1540.5. (Thanks to blogger Trollkiller)
7. How can someone find out if he's on the watch list? What is the procedure to be taken off the watch list or the no fly list?
8. How do the "on the spot" fines align with the Administrative Procedures Act? How does doubling of the fines for those who ask how to context fines align with the Administrative Procedures Act?
9. Why does the TSA care if a domestic passenger (not an overseas passenger) is carrying a large amount of cash?
10. Given that the TSA is supposed to guard access to the sterile areas of the airport, what is the legal basis for having passive MMW technology installed in other areas of the airport? Why are those monitoring the screens not sheltered from public view?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Bugger the TSA
The Transportation Security Administration has a blog. It is intended to facilitate communications between the flying public and the TSA administration. There are a few problems with the blog as it is presented though.
They do not answer questions.
Actually, they do answer some of the questions posted in the comments. They answer the softball questions. They answer the easy questions. They do not answer any of the difficult questions people have been posing to them since the day the blog was introduced.
Here's a good list of questions to bother the TSA with. The blogger team seems intent to let statist commenters handle these questions on their behalf. The goal is to get one of the actual bloggers address these issues.
Dear Blog Team,
1.The demonstrations about imaging technology only shows an image of a man from the rear as proof that frontal images will not show any intimate details. To further support the promise that intimate details are not shown, the viewing screen used by the TSA is carefully protected from view by the public. Given the track record of the TSA on "just trust us" issues, do you really feel yet another "just trust us but don't verify" is a way to increase public trust in the TSA? What measures are being taken to ensure that images from your new advanced technologies are not overly invasive and do not ever leave the TSA?
They finally posted front and rear male and female pictures, so people can individually judge if the process is too invasive.
2.Every chemist who has been asked has answered that there is no scientific basis for the 3-1-1 rule, a binary liquid explosive that is undetectable, stable, and can be easily turned into an explosive. Yes, we know about the London plot, with some guys who had no equipment and no knowledge and no plans beyond the "gee this would be a neat idea" stage, but the fact is that science has refuted both their plot and your rule. We know that the TSA has some data that contradicts the scientific facts, that they have research that contradicts scientific laws, but the TSA research is "classified" and the message from the TSA is "just trust us" with regards to a rule that violates the laws of nature. It's obvious that the TSA itself knows the rule lacks any scientific basis by the free mixing of liquids in an unshielded trash can at the check point. Given all of that, why do you keep the 3-1-1 rule?
They finally answered this one too. It's not a binary liquid, it's a liquid and a powder. The problem is that the concentration of hydrogen peroxide needed to make this work is so very strong that bomb sniffers would always detect it. The 3-1-1 rule is still an unnecessary encumberance.
3. It is TSA policy that TSOs do not have the authority to deny someone the right to fly. It is also TSA policy to not give additional screening to someone as a punishment for complaining. Note, the order of events in that statement is not extra screening leading to complaint, but complaint leading to extra screening. This question has nothing to do with avoiding extra screening by complaining about it - this question has everything to do with getting extra screening because one dared to complain about the TSA. Given that TSOs still hold complainers for extra screening, and given that holding someone for extra screening until after their plane is in the air is de facto denial of flight (although apparently not de jure), is there any plan in place to dicipline screeners to conduct retaliatory screening and de facto denial of flight?
4. Given that nipple rings are clearly not deadly weapons, clearly not disguised weapons, and that a visual inspection was actually offered as a means to solve the alarm situation, why was the traveler with the nipple rings forced to remove them?
5. In the near future, when REAL ID is implemented, the TSA has determined that the only valid IDs for flying are IDs that conform to REAL ID requirements. Several states have announced that they are either delaying or outright denying the REAL ID requirements for their drivers licenses.What plans does the TSA have to give additional screening to 100% of the travelers from those states? Have additional personnel requirements and additional space requirements already been analyzed? Given that one of those states is Arizona, with several major national and international hubs, do you think that the insistance on REAL ID instead of a regular drivers license is overly onerous a burden?
Oh boy did the ever answer this one, in part.. The answer is that every single person from a state that doesn't conform will get the additional screening. They won't budge on the rest and don't care about the intrusiveness. The plan is to blame the state and get the voters angry at their state government instead of the TSA. That is unlikely to work.
6. The biggest security hole is after the TSA inspects baggage and before the baggage is put on the airplane. Since the luggage is all either unlocked or bearing a TSA approved lock that can be easily defeated, and the TSA specifically denies any responsiblity for the baggage after screening, what is to stop a baggage handler from either stealing from the bags or planting a dangerous item in the luggage?
7. What measures are being taken to ensure that terrorists themselves do not infiltrate the TSA with the objective of becoming TSOs and therefore bypass security to get deadly devices planted on airplanes? If you cannot answer that for security reasons, can you tell us if any measures are in place at all?
8. Given that this blog is about facilitating communication, why does nobody on the blog team ever answer comments in any but the most recent entry? Why are these very questions occasionally censored?
The common theme in these questions is that the TSA has an institutional impediment to admitting error. The closest you ever come is "we are reviewing policies." Even the TSA knows the 3-1-1 rule has no scientific backing, but to repeal that regulation is to admit they did something wrong. They cannot admit they did something wrong. Therefore the rule cannot be repealed. The more I question them about their obvious mistakes, the harder it is for them to avoid admitting you made a mistake. They can, and do, make mistakes. They erred on the 3-1-1 rule, they erred on the piercings, they are going to err on REAL ID.
The common theme in the answers previously given is that not even the TSA believes what the TSA tells the public. It would be insulting if you thought your official statement ware meant to be believed. If you actually thought that statements were serious you would be showing contempt for our intelligence. Instead you are simply showing contempt for us. That is beyond insult. It shows you do not care enough about us to even insult us.
They do not answer questions.
Actually, they do answer some of the questions posted in the comments. They answer the softball questions. They answer the easy questions. They do not answer any of the difficult questions people have been posing to them since the day the blog was introduced.
Here's a good list of questions to bother the TSA with. The blogger team seems intent to let statist commenters handle these questions on their behalf. The goal is to get one of the actual bloggers address these issues.
Dear Blog Team,
1.
They finally posted front and rear male and female pictures, so people can individually judge if the process is too invasive.
2.
They finally answered this one too. It's not a binary liquid, it's a liquid and a powder. The problem is that the concentration of hydrogen peroxide needed to make this work is so very strong that bomb sniffers would always detect it. The 3-1-1 rule is still an unnecessary encumberance.
3. It is TSA policy that TSOs do not have the authority to deny someone the right to fly. It is also TSA policy to not give additional screening to someone as a punishment for complaining. Note, the order of events in that statement is not extra screening leading to complaint, but complaint leading to extra screening. This question has nothing to do with avoiding extra screening by complaining about it - this question has everything to do with getting extra screening because one dared to complain about the TSA. Given that TSOs still hold complainers for extra screening, and given that holding someone for extra screening until after their plane is in the air is de facto denial of flight (although apparently not de jure), is there any plan in place to dicipline screeners to conduct retaliatory screening and de facto denial of flight?
4. Given that nipple rings are clearly not deadly weapons, clearly not disguised weapons, and that a visual inspection was actually offered as a means to solve the alarm situation, why was the traveler with the nipple rings forced to remove them?
5. In the near future, when REAL ID is implemented, the TSA has determined that the only valid IDs for flying are IDs that conform to REAL ID requirements. Several states have announced that they are either delaying or outright denying the REAL ID requirements for their drivers licenses.
Oh boy did the ever answer this one, in part.. The answer is that every single person from a state that doesn't conform will get the additional screening. They won't budge on the rest and don't care about the intrusiveness. The plan is to blame the state and get the voters angry at their state government instead of the TSA. That is unlikely to work.
6. The biggest security hole is after the TSA inspects baggage and before the baggage is put on the airplane. Since the luggage is all either unlocked or bearing a TSA approved lock that can be easily defeated, and the TSA specifically denies any responsiblity for the baggage after screening, what is to stop a baggage handler from either stealing from the bags or planting a dangerous item in the luggage?
7. What measures are being taken to ensure that terrorists themselves do not infiltrate the TSA with the objective of becoming TSOs and therefore bypass security to get deadly devices planted on airplanes? If you cannot answer that for security reasons, can you tell us if any measures are in place at all?
8. Given that this blog is about facilitating communication, why does nobody on the blog team ever answer comments in any but the most recent entry? Why are these very questions occasionally censored?
The common theme in these questions is that the TSA has an institutional impediment to admitting error. The closest you ever come is "we are reviewing policies." Even the TSA knows the 3-1-1 rule has no scientific backing, but to repeal that regulation is to admit they did something wrong. They cannot admit they did something wrong. Therefore the rule cannot be repealed. The more I question them about their obvious mistakes, the harder it is for them to avoid admitting you made a mistake. They can, and do, make mistakes. They erred on the 3-1-1 rule, they erred on the piercings, they are going to err on REAL ID.
The common theme in the answers previously given is that not even the TSA believes what the TSA tells the public. It would be insulting if you thought your official statement ware meant to be believed. If you actually thought that statements were serious you would be showing contempt for our intelligence. Instead you are simply showing contempt for us. That is beyond insult. It shows you do not care enough about us to even insult us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)