I hated to post this, because it's a political speech, but I think it's important historically because I think it shows the tables starting to turn on this issue. Lord knows I don't want to see a dozen political speeches on HN a day, but I believe this is unique, it's very tech-related, and its a topic the community has shown a great amount of interest in.
I imagine once the rest of the professional political class really understands what a total disaster TSA has created there will be speeches like this everyday. The bandwagon will be full and more will be clamoring to get on-board. (and yes, I know they've already started, but this seems to be the first higher-profile example of a politician just really letting loose on the issue).
I still remain skeptical that the politicians can fix it, but perhaps we'll enter a period where lots of speeches are made and fingers pointed. For those of you who are political junkies, it will be very interesting to see how the national parties respond to this over the next two years.
* A concurrent resolution prohibiting use of Federal funds for foreign travel by Senators, Representatives, and officers and employees of the Congress, unless such travel is specifically authorized by a recorded three-fourths vote of the House involved.
* A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
* A joint resolution to end the practice of guaranteeing or making available loans to foreign governments.
* A bill to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.
* Flat Rate Tax Act of 1983
* A bill to provide that for purposes of assessing the taxable gain of a taxpayer, the Internal Revenue Service shall treat income in the form of United States coins or currency as income received in the amount of the face value of such coins or currency.
* A bill to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to make social security coverage completely optional for both present and future workers, to freeze benefit levels, to provide for the partial financing of future benefits from general revenues subject to specified conditions, to eliminate the earnings test, to make changes in the tax treatment of IRA accounts, and for other purposes.
* A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.
* United Nations Termination Act
(These are old, but he re-introduces them regularly; just last year, he again proposed to abolish the income tax).
Yes, I do think Paul is a mendacious kook. But my point here is, a Paul bill is actually a counterindication of the sense of the House. The fact that Paul is the first to address the issue suggests that the rest of the House (along with 80% of Americans, according to a CBS poll) don't think this is a real issue.
Is this the kind of problem that a politician like ron paul can fix though? Thanks in great part to Reddit, Ron Paul is largely associated with crackpot ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand type movements, so anyone in the know would probably dismiss anything he does out of hand as "just a stunt move". Certainly, that's my first impression for his introduction of a bill with no political support and, as far as I understand the US legal system, zero chance of actually getting anywhere.
Now, if someone with some political credibility introduced a bill with support from other members of the House and Senate, that'd be worth pointing out. But as it is, this is no more "serious" than a good sketch on the Daily Show, is it?
US political discourse is so corrupted and disconnected from reality that it resembles the interior life of a schizophrenic, crack-addicted gun nut with severe weight and credit-card problems. Nothing substantial will change until a forum for sane discourse emerges, and that's going to take a revolution of some kind. Not necessarily a violent one, but definitely involving radical political change, on the order of the rise of the Republican party under Lincoln. I don't see any such revolution on the horizon, but it's possible.
I am an outsider living in the US, and the hope for change you're expressing makes me think of how the mother of the crack-addicted gun nut schizophrenic must relate to him. To an outsider, he's hopeless, but for anyone with some stake in his happiness, every small move in the right direction is cause for hope, no matter how irrational that might be to others.
I don't think this means the tables are turning. Ron Paul has been an outspoken advocate of privacy for a long time, and the rest of the world ignored him for just as long.
If Joe Biden or John McCain came out in favor of privacy, that would be evidence the tables are turning.
It's just a hot issue, so some politicians will take a stance on this (the cynic in me says - to get some support in the disgruntled segment of the populace...)
As it is; while us vocal minority are kicking up a stink most people are just apathetic about these things. Till that changes, nothing else will.
It's political bikeshedding. Few people have the background to understand Quantitative easing, but everybody gets the squicks about being naked in public.
The politicians know this, of course, and are going to reduce this to a few slogans and beat it into the ground. This despite the fact that very few Americans spend any real amount of time dealing with the TSA.
And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries...
I, too, am doubtful our political system is capable of solving the problem unless enough of us as individuals are willing to stand up (and be groped) rather than meekly letting them strip us of our rights.
The duty of the government is to PROTECT our rights, not VIOLATE them!
Better than an overview, here is the full text of the bill:
A BILL
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.
No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
I appreciate Ron Paul's stance, but the introduction of this bill reminds me of the West Wing character Ainsley Hayes and her stance on the Equal Rights Amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXPLirJRGDQ#t=3m54s
The Fourth Amendment should already be protecting us from what the TSA is doing. Why isn't it? And isn't the fact that Fourth Amendment violations are not prosecuted as such a much bigger issue?
The clause that shelters the TSA is from a 1973 court decision: "a warrantless search...is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is 'no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives'" (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm). Cavity searches aren't far.
> And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries...
Republicans would do well to notice that a lot of the polling of people who attended tea party rallies across the US show that the people attending were about 50% social liberal / fiscal conservative (more Libertarian) versus social conservative / fiscal conservative (traditional Republican base).
> And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries...
Show them his "We The People Act" and then see if they feel the same way.
"The argument from the executive branch is when you buy a ticket you have sacrificed your rights; that isn't the case;you never have to sacrifice your rights." - Ron Paul
Correct for this case, but in the interest of nitpicking "never" is false... If you live in a society with a social contract there are "rights" you sacrifice. Not that sacrifices are a bad thing: the standard usage implies a painful loss for something of much greater value in the end, such as sacrificing a queen to win a game of chess. (Or sacrificing a virgin to gain favor with the gods. The important point is to make sure you're rationally measuring utility.)
Paul is not just trying to revert airport security, he is trying to introduce legislation that removes immunity from the government for anything that a citizen would not have.
The problem with Paul is he is an idealist. We need a pragmatic libertarian.
Was anyone else unimpressed with his delivery? From the transcript:
THE PILOT HAS A GUN IN THE COCKPIT AND HE'S MANAGING THIS AIRCRAFT WHICH IS A MISSILE AND WE MAKE HIM GO THROUGH THIS GROPING X-RAY EXERCISE, HAVING PEOPLE FEEL IN THEIR UNDERWEAR.
It just gives the impression that he's more excited than thoughtful. Then again maybe thats more important on the floor of the house.
The transcript reads to me like it's been generated by speech-recognition software, or is a rough draft that has not been cleaned up. There are several other lines that make no sense or seem out of place. Disclaimer: I didn't watch the video, so I'm just speculating.
I was with him until he started talking about how the "greatest boon" to airline security had been "a lock on the door and a gun in the cockpit".
Firstly, to my knowledge, nobody has attempted to storm the cockpit since 9/11, so the locks, though a good idea, haven't actually done anything. And the guns -- projectile weapons not being the best idea when travelling in a pressurized metal capsule anyway -- have certainly never been fired.
The actual improvement in airline security has been greater vigilance on the part of passengers, who stopped both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, and better intelligence operations in the middle east, which got us the tip-off about the toner cartridge bomb.
Airplanes only represent a unique terror target if they can be used as weapons to inflict greater damage. Putting a bomb on a plane will kill several hundred people, but so will putting a bomb in a mall or train.
Thus, securing the cockpit gets you more bang for the buck by removing a whole avenue of attack, with relatively low cost (the lock and the gun). While I agree that firing a gun in a pressurized cabin isn't the best idea, having it there makes it very likely that the pilots would have an advantage over any potential hijacker, since keeping other guns off the plane is relatively easy, and doesn't require overly invasive searching.
You can hardly point to the lack of the incident that the security measure was designed to prevent as evidence to the pointlessness of said security measure.
If no-one's ever climbed over the walls at a prison, does that mean that the walls are "doing nothing"?
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|15 years ago|reply
I imagine once the rest of the professional political class really understands what a total disaster TSA has created there will be speeches like this everyday. The bandwagon will be full and more will be clamoring to get on-board. (and yes, I know they've already started, but this seems to be the first higher-profile example of a politician just really letting loose on the issue).
I still remain skeptical that the politicians can fix it, but perhaps we'll enter a period where lots of speeches are made and fingers pointed. For those of you who are political junkies, it will be very interesting to see how the national parties respond to this over the next two years.
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
http://j.mp/cPogFY [thomas.loc.gov]
Sampling of the first page:
* A concurrent resolution prohibiting use of Federal funds for foreign travel by Senators, Representatives, and officers and employees of the Congress, unless such travel is specifically authorized by a recorded three-fourths vote of the House involved.
* A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
* A joint resolution to end the practice of guaranteeing or making available loans to foreign governments.
* A bill to repeal the Federal Reserve Act.
* Flat Rate Tax Act of 1983
* A bill to provide that for purposes of assessing the taxable gain of a taxpayer, the Internal Revenue Service shall treat income in the form of United States coins or currency as income received in the amount of the face value of such coins or currency.
* A bill to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to make social security coverage completely optional for both present and future workers, to freeze benefit levels, to provide for the partial financing of future benefits from general revenues subject to specified conditions, to eliminate the earnings test, to make changes in the tax treatment of IRA accounts, and for other purposes.
* A bill to repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment.
* United Nations Termination Act
(These are old, but he re-introduces them regularly; just last year, he again proposed to abolish the income tax).
Yes, I do think Paul is a mendacious kook. But my point here is, a Paul bill is actually a counterindication of the sense of the House. The fact that Paul is the first to address the issue suggests that the rest of the House (along with 80% of Americans, according to a CBS poll) don't think this is a real issue.
[+] [-] swombat|15 years ago|reply
Now, if someone with some political credibility introduced a bill with support from other members of the House and Senate, that'd be worth pointing out. But as it is, this is no more "serious" than a good sketch on the Daily Show, is it?
[+] [-] Estragon|15 years ago|reply
I am an outsider living in the US, and the hope for change you're expressing makes me think of how the mother of the crack-addicted gun nut schizophrenic must relate to him. To an outsider, he's hopeless, but for anyone with some stake in his happiness, every small move in the right direction is cause for hope, no matter how irrational that might be to others.
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|15 years ago|reply
If Joe Biden or John McCain came out in favor of privacy, that would be evidence the tables are turning.
[+] [-] ErrantX|15 years ago|reply
As it is; while us vocal minority are kicking up a stink most people are just apathetic about these things. Till that changes, nothing else will.
[+] [-] rmc|15 years ago|reply
Surely a copyright law, or software patents law would be much more 'tech related'
[+] [-] CERTIORARI|15 years ago|reply
The politicians know this, of course, and are going to reduce this to a few slogans and beat it into the ground. This despite the fact that very few Americans spend any real amount of time dealing with the TSA.
[+] [-] shelly|15 years ago|reply
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries...
I, too, am doubtful our political system is capable of solving the problem unless enough of us as individuals are willing to stand up (and be groped) rather than meekly letting them strip us of our rights.
The duty of the government is to PROTECT our rights, not VIOLATE them!
[+] [-] ynniv|15 years ago|reply
A BILL
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.
No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
[+] [-] gemma|15 years ago|reply
The Fourth Amendment should already be protecting us from what the TSA is doing. Why isn't it? And isn't the fact that Fourth Amendment violations are not prosecuted as such a much bigger issue?
The clause that shelters the TSA is from a 1973 court decision: "a warrantless search...is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is 'no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives'" (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm). Cavity searches aren't far.
[+] [-] protomyth|15 years ago|reply
Republicans would do well to notice that a lot of the polling of people who attended tea party rallies across the US show that the people attending were about 50% social liberal / fiscal conservative (more Libertarian) versus social conservative / fiscal conservative (traditional Republican base).
[+] [-] tzs|15 years ago|reply
Show them his "We The People Act" and then see if they feel the same way.
[+] [-] jeromec|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jach|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clammer|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] barnaby|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdavid|15 years ago|reply
Paul is not just trying to revert airport security, he is trying to introduce legislation that removes immunity from the government for anything that a citizen would not have.
The problem with Paul is he is an idealist. We need a pragmatic libertarian.
[+] [-] johnbender|15 years ago|reply
THE PILOT HAS A GUN IN THE COCKPIT AND HE'S MANAGING THIS AIRCRAFT WHICH IS A MISSILE AND WE MAKE HIM GO THROUGH THIS GROPING X-RAY EXERCISE, HAVING PEOPLE FEEL IN THEIR UNDERWEAR.
It just gives the impression that he's more excited than thoughtful. Then again maybe thats more important on the floor of the house.
[+] [-] ams6110|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fraserharris|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emilepetrone|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JangoSteve|15 years ago|reply
Googled and found the Ron Paul clip on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwsdq69AHnw
[+] [-] empika|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seldo|15 years ago|reply
Firstly, to my knowledge, nobody has attempted to storm the cockpit since 9/11, so the locks, though a good idea, haven't actually done anything. And the guns -- projectile weapons not being the best idea when travelling in a pressurized metal capsule anyway -- have certainly never been fired.
The actual improvement in airline security has been greater vigilance on the part of passengers, who stopped both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber, and better intelligence operations in the middle east, which got us the tip-off about the toner cartridge bomb.
[+] [-] ja30278|15 years ago|reply
Thus, securing the cockpit gets you more bang for the buck by removing a whole avenue of attack, with relatively low cost (the lock and the gun). While I agree that firing a gun in a pressurized cabin isn't the best idea, having it there makes it very likely that the pilots would have an advantage over any potential hijacker, since keeping other guns off the plane is relatively easy, and doesn't require overly invasive searching.
[+] [-] andymorris|15 years ago|reply
If no-one's ever climbed over the walls at a prison, does that mean that the walls are "doing nothing"?
[+] [-] shrughes|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callahad|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidw|15 years ago|reply
This is what you get when you start with the politics articles.
[+] [-] huadie|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]