There used to be an old, old joke on slashdot. Whatever the topic, somebody would say "I, for one welcome our new X overlords"
I, for one, welcome our new security overlords.
For some reason, it doesn't sound as funny anymore.
There was a story recently about how all sorts of various agencies now want their own drones to watch the citizenry as we go about our normal lives. I'll never forget an interview the reporter had with a Congressman. His basic stance was something along the lines of "Boys will be boys. This is just all sorts of other agencies wanting to get in on the UAV bandwagon."
My point is this: I don't think our elected representatives take any of this very seriously at all, no matter what they might say during an election or on TV. I don't think it bothers them for one second that the TSA gets to pick it's own witnesses for each day, or that gradually we're turning into a security state. I just don't think it really registers on their radar.
I found the comment that points out that having both parties in the same hearing who are under oath and currently engaged in a lawsuit, might find themselves making statements or responding without the benefit of having their counsel present. Then one might turn around and subpoena that testimony into the lawsuit and add it in as evidence, fairly compelling.
That being said, it is how the game is played. If one of your representatives are on the committee I would recommend writing them a note, or calling their office, to express how you think they should oversee the activities of the TSA.
One of the issues which needs more coverage is that Security Theatre is not 'harmless mostly, possibly helpful' it is in fact 'harmful mostly, possibly helpful'. This sort of theater cuts into business productivity, makes folks on the planes grumpier, causes millions of dollars in losses when folks miss planes, and erodes the citizens trust in their legitimate law enforcement agencies. It is not harmless, it is harmful and that message needs to get to Congress.
More on topic: I believe that one of the main reasons why they don't take it seriously is because they are literally above the law here. They don't have to go through the same process that ordinary travelers do. I can't find an authoritative source, so either all of Congress or only those senior members traveling with a security detail are exempt, but either way, those in charge don't understand the full impact it has on ordinary people's lives.
It's only because currently the politicians belong to a "protected" class that do not have worry over such policies, they are above them. But as history shows, eventually most of these protected class will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us and suddenly they will care. But by then it will be too late.
This kind of thinking is dangerously misguided. You're not "turning into" a security state, you are a security state. "Freedom of speech zones" and all the other newspeak bullshit, the OWS crackdown, SOPA, ACTA, etc., to name but a few, are not stepping stones on the path to tyranny. They are tyranny. You guys have already arrived. You're there. And your society will not be able to do anything about it until it realizes this.
So quit talking as though it's something that's going to happen if you're not really careful, and start talking as though it has already happened and something needs to be done about it.
Sent Jason Chaffetz (my representative) the following email:
Disgusted With The TSA
I was looking forward to seeing the TSA respond to Bruce Schneier's criticisms in the Oversight Committee meeting today. He is one of the world's experts on security. The news that he was dismissed from the committee makes me think the TSA is much less interested in actual security than in their own appearance, which fits the definition of security theatre very well. Please hold the TSA accountable for their gross misuse of power. Please make them answer to actual security experts on their policies. Thank you very much.
Quick clarification: Stephen Lord doesn't work for DHS, he works for GAO, which is an agency established by Congress to maintain, as the title says, "government accountability". His jurisdiction is over DHS. This isn't to say he's a good guy, since GAO is mostly bean counters, but there it is.
(meta comment - downvote so it doesn't appear in the discussion)
Kill the name calling. We all agree on the ethical standing of these peeps. No need to state it, let's keep HN authoritative and professional. Great list of the witnesses though - really eye opening as to who they allow in.
That's over 20 different states represented there, so odds are good you can contact one of the members and be listened to. Let 'em know this is bullshit, and that if we're going to spend money on security, it shouldn't be on theater.
Why is Schneier presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA? The body scanner program in particular has been roundly criticized by civil libertarians (both conservative and liberal), has generated credible concerns from professional scientists as to health risks, and has been repeatedly demonstrated by physical security experts to be ineffective.
Schneier is an effective writer, particular when his audience comes with built-in respect for his accomplishments, but his broad disdain for virtually all of airport security† probably reduces his effectiveness in making a case to the wider public. He's easy to caricature, and traffics professionally in an image of "security muckraking" that suggests he'd oppose the TSA no matter what it does.
Schneier is effective because he tells a different side of the story from most. The civil libertarian angle is already pretty well covered. People take it as a security versus liberty tradeoff and the population has, in general, resoundingly chosen to favor security. I don't think there are any new arguments to be made there. The civil libertarians will say that this stuff is bad, the TSA will say that it's necessary to keep us safe, and nothing will really happen.
Schneier is different because he's an expert in security and he lays out just why the TSA's approach is bad security. Not because it infringes on liberties, but because it's just not effective, and the money could be used more effectively. This approach is, I believe, the only way to convince an unreasonably frightened American public to back change.
> Why is Schneier presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA?
I don't think he is presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA. I think the problem is that he would have been the only critic of the TSA to speak before the committee.
> The work of our two Committees has documented a recurring pattern of mismanagement and waste at the Transportation Security Administration. Add to this an unending string of video clips, photographs and news reports about inappropriate, clumsy and even illogical searches and screenings by TSA agents. Americans are right to demand answers from TSA about the return on investment of their tax dollars.
Because Schneier in particular has shown numerous weaknesses in airport security systems. And what you've described as "disdain" amounts to treating airport security like any other kind of security system, evaluating it critically, and correctly realizing that it has almost zero value, a huge cost (in both money and time), and a huge impact on civil liberties.
In other words, he has very effective criticisms, which makes him unsuitable for hearings designed to publically demonstrate a lack of effective criticisms.
>Why is Schneier presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA?
It has less to do with whether he's the most effective critic of the TSA and more to do with whether he's the most effective critic of the TSA who is [was] going to be present at the hearing. All the qualified scientists and concerned LEOs in the world aren't going to do us any good if Congress doesn't listen to them. The hearing is already heavy on shills and light on saints, we need all of the voices we can get.
It would be cool if you (or anyone) could list a few people who might be really convincing, and we might be able to get them to contact Congress -- it's too late for this hearing, tho'.
With that said, this narrative about the TSA getting Schneier removed from the hearing is helpful to the cause, since it exposes the TSA's nasty manipulative tactics, so I'll be sharing this link around, and I hope you'll join me.
He is a expert witness. One of the more renown security experts. He's not "making a case to the wider public". He is testifying before a congressional committee (or would have been).
I probably shouldn't be disappointed, by now, that the TSA continue to live up to the reputation that they have around here. The agency is pretty much a pure creature of cognitive bias at this point - of sunk cost fallacies, of the desperate impulse to cover one's own ass, of irrational fears and irrational responses.
I flew over the weekend. I reached a bit of a breaking point about taking the TSA seriously when I heard one of the screeners refer to a contraband item (a bottle of water) in luggage as a "party foul." Everyone but the higher-ups knows that it's an absolute farce and a waste of money. It's a great example of why the tops of hierarchies should _not_ be insulated from the consequences of their decisions - rather, the opposite.
I couldn't find a peep about the meeting in TSA's blog. I find it ludicrous that they can boot a top tier expert without enough time to replace him by anyone that could bring similar points to the discussion.
Canadian here -- a non-American perspective: your President has no cojones. If he had a pair, the TSA is one of the things he could have easily remedied, or better controlled.
Your assuming that security theater, a large target for public's anger, and a ready source of media distractions aren't all very valuable tools for The Office of the President.
No, a lot of our extant problems would not be present under any reasonably sane (not necessarily benevolent) monarch, very likely including some of the more useless security apparatus. We'd just have different problems.
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|14 years ago|reply
I, for one, welcome our new security overlords.
For some reason, it doesn't sound as funny anymore.
There was a story recently about how all sorts of various agencies now want their own drones to watch the citizenry as we go about our normal lives. I'll never forget an interview the reporter had with a Congressman. His basic stance was something along the lines of "Boys will be boys. This is just all sorts of other agencies wanting to get in on the UAV bandwagon."
My point is this: I don't think our elected representatives take any of this very seriously at all, no matter what they might say during an election or on TV. I don't think it bothers them for one second that the TSA gets to pick it's own witnesses for each day, or that gradually we're turning into a security state. I just don't think it really registers on their radar.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|14 years ago|reply
That being said, it is how the game is played. If one of your representatives are on the committee I would recommend writing them a note, or calling their office, to express how you think they should oversee the activities of the TSA.
One of the issues which needs more coverage is that Security Theatre is not 'harmless mostly, possibly helpful' it is in fact 'harmful mostly, possibly helpful'. This sort of theater cuts into business productivity, makes folks on the planes grumpier, causes millions of dollars in losses when folks miss planes, and erodes the citizens trust in their legitimate law enforcement agencies. It is not harmless, it is harmful and that message needs to get to Congress.
[+] [-] fabricode|14 years ago|reply
More on topic: I believe that one of the main reasons why they don't take it seriously is because they are literally above the law here. They don't have to go through the same process that ordinary travelers do. I can't find an authoritative source, so either all of Congress or only those senior members traveling with a security detail are exempt, but either way, those in charge don't understand the full impact it has on ordinary people's lives.
[+] [-] talmand|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganwald|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluedanieru|14 years ago|reply
This kind of thinking is dangerously misguided. You're not "turning into" a security state, you are a security state. "Freedom of speech zones" and all the other newspeak bullshit, the OWS crackdown, SOPA, ACTA, etc., to name but a few, are not stepping stones on the path to tyranny. They are tyranny. You guys have already arrived. You're there. And your society will not be able to do anything about it until it realizes this.
So quit talking as though it's something that's going to happen if you're not really careful, and start talking as though it has already happened and something needs to be done about it.
[+] [-] jergason|14 years ago|reply
Disgusted With The TSA
I was looking forward to seeing the TSA respond to Bruce Schneier's criticisms in the Oversight Committee meeting today. He is one of the world's experts on security. The news that he was dismissed from the committee makes me think the TSA is much less interested in actual security than in their own appearance, which fits the definition of security theatre very well. Please hold the TSA accountable for their gross misuse of power. Please make them answer to actual security experts on their policies. Thank you very much.
[+] [-] davidw|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bud|14 years ago|reply
Christopher L. McLaughlin, Transportation Security Administration, Assistant Administrator for Security Operations
Stephen Sadler, Transportation Security Administration, Assistant Administrator for Intelligence and Analysis
Rear Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security & Stewardship
Stephen M. Lord, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Director, Homeland Security
[+] [-] philwelch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjcm|14 years ago|reply
Kill the name calling. We all agree on the ethical standing of these peeps. No need to state it, let's keep HN authoritative and professional. Great list of the witnesses though - really eye opening as to who they allow in.
[+] [-] wpietri|14 years ago|reply
http://oversight.house.gov/committee-members/
That's over 20 different states represented there, so odds are good you can contact one of the members and be listened to. Let 'em know this is bullshit, and that if we're going to spend money on security, it shouldn't be on theater.
[+] [-] kungfooey|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlev|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tptacek|14 years ago|reply
Schneier is an effective writer, particular when his audience comes with built-in respect for his accomplishments, but his broad disdain for virtually all of airport security† probably reduces his effectiveness in making a case to the wider public. He's easy to caricature, and traffics professionally in an image of "security muckraking" that suggests he'd oppose the TSA no matter what it does.
† A disdain I share, mind you.
[+] [-] mikeash|14 years ago|reply
Schneier is different because he's an expert in security and he lays out just why the TSA's approach is bad security. Not because it infringes on liberties, but because it's just not effective, and the money could be used more effectively. This approach is, I believe, the only way to convince an unreasonably frightened American public to back change.
[+] [-] DanBC|14 years ago|reply
I don't think he is presumed to be the most effective critic of the TSA. I think the problem is that he would have been the only critic of the TSA to speak before the committee.
(http://oversight.house.gov/hearing/tsa-oversight-part-iii-ef...)
Mind you, the chair's comment seems scathing.
> The work of our two Committees has documented a recurring pattern of mismanagement and waste at the Transportation Security Administration. Add to this an unending string of video clips, photographs and news reports about inappropriate, clumsy and even illogical searches and screenings by TSA agents. Americans are right to demand answers from TSA about the return on investment of their tax dollars.
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|14 years ago|reply
In other words, he has very effective criticisms, which makes him unsuitable for hearings designed to publically demonstrate a lack of effective criticisms.
[+] [-] scythe|14 years ago|reply
It has less to do with whether he's the most effective critic of the TSA and more to do with whether he's the most effective critic of the TSA who is [was] going to be present at the hearing. All the qualified scientists and concerned LEOs in the world aren't going to do us any good if Congress doesn't listen to them. The hearing is already heavy on shills and light on saints, we need all of the voices we can get.
It would be cool if you (or anyone) could list a few people who might be really convincing, and we might be able to get them to contact Congress -- it's too late for this hearing, tho'.
With that said, this narrative about the TSA getting Schneier removed from the hearing is helpful to the cause, since it exposes the TSA's nasty manipulative tactics, so I'll be sharing this link around, and I hope you'll join me.
[+] [-] jpdoctor|14 years ago|reply
He also has technical credentials a mile long.
In truth, this is an outrage.
[+] [-] njharman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jodrellblank|14 years ago|reply
Who is presuming that?
[+] [-] rhizome|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burgerbrain|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sedev|14 years ago|reply
I flew over the weekend. I reached a bit of a breaking point about taking the TSA seriously when I heard one of the screeners refer to a contraband item (a bottle of water) in luggage as a "party foul." Everyone but the higher-ups knows that it's an absolute farce and a waste of money. It's a great example of why the tops of hierarchies should _not_ be insulated from the consequences of their decisions - rather, the opposite.
[+] [-] jerrya|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheald|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cliveholloway|14 years ago|reply
Obviously this is now going to be just another whitewash. sigh
[+] [-] vgnet|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshz|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|14 years ago|reply
Based on their logic, the TSA should also withdraw from the hearings as they're involved in the lawsuits.
[+] [-] stblack|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njharman|14 years ago|reply
1984 was a very good instruction manual.
[+] [-] jjcm|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WiseWeasel|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gkanai|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdunbar|14 years ago|reply
"A republic," replied the Doctor. "If you can keep it.”
Feels like we've lost it: the monarchists have won it back.
The pity is they're not even very good monarchists.
[+] [-] nknight|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheez|14 years ago|reply