Or am we? I?
3 Likes
Iāve really wondered about how the TSA got to be what it is after 9/11.
I used to travel a lot, and am quite aware of how racist they areābecause life is strange, the only time I got selected for TSA precheck was when I accidentally had 500 rounds of live ammunition in my roller bag. Yes, I am white, and was well dressed that day (protip: always dress nice when youāre flying. It worked for the 9/11 hijackers, and it will continue to work for you.). There also was a good (and true) story behind it, which helped. They were actually going to let me keep it, as long as I checked my bag! 
Bruce Schneier really best summed it up with the simple label of āSecurity Theaterā. The correct response to 9/11 would have been to fail to respond in any way (at least visibly), but thatās a position thatās politically untenable. So we get lots of nonsense in the meantime.
It doesnāt help that the TSA is staffed by very low grade workers. Itās a great job if your nose is clean enough to land it, and you lack any other skillsāgood benefits, good pay. A friend of mine did a stint there in grad school around '03, and shared the detail that every year the TSA at his airport had to fire 40% of its staff for failing the competency tests that they passed to get hired a year prior.
Totally unrelated to the discussion, but a consequence of working for the TSA is that you get sick a lot because of being exposed to so many people (actually my friend almost died from a virus he speculated he contracted at work). You also find a lot of really embarrassing stuff in peopleās bags, and get to (briefly) meet famous people.
3 Likes
Not likely. Laura was on the DHS watch list since about 2005 / 2006. It was actually due to her understanding of opsec / crypto from her earlier work and dealings with government surveilance that Snowden trusted her in the first place.
5 Likes
Which would be pure hypocrisy. Do you think that DHS would not like to talk to Snowden?
One measure of opaqueness would be how often the government refuses to let the public see public records.
I suppose itās possible that other administrations could have had more secrets, thereās simply no way that this one is the most transparent one.
1 Like
Errr, thatās not me flying off the handle. Thanks me, like, exercising incredible restraint.
You are welcome to clarify your position, I may have got you all wrong.
I doubt it though. 
govvie govvie govvie govvie govvie
Iām told thereās a phrase in Brazillian that I love, forgive me if I mangle it a bit, āI didnāt know that, I didnāt want to know that, and I wouldnāt get along with anyone who knew that.ā
6 Likes
Iāve done so in later comments, but here goes: the arguments Iāve had with the ex have me representing the side that talks about the potential for abuse. The ex didnāt see this as problematic, but without her ability to discuss a lot of her experiences openly, it was difficult to really have a good discussion that might see one of our minds changing.
Regarding the treatment of Laura Poitras, itās assumed that the documentary which was critical of US foreign policy was the source of her harassment, but we donāt know because of a lack of transparency. I havenāt actually seen her film, but it doesnāt seem on the surface to be particularly critical.
That lack of transparency is unacceptable, because it does allow for abuse of the system. It is possible that her treatment may be more related to the people she was associating with in Iraq, but we donāt know. Without knowing the true reasons for her treatment by the DHS, I canāt really say whether it was called for or not.
You clearly read parts of my post, and not others.
1 Like
No, I read the whole post, your point was unclear. I donāt think my assessment was at all unfair.
Your point as stated here seems very mild considering the lengths you went to in order to limit your liability for it. You probably should have just posted it with your usual account.
Absolutely not, with my usual account.
My point may not have been crystal clear, but you definitely flew off the handle, and assumed I was saying something I didnāt. Go back and read my post, and your response. Seriously. You obviously skipped some sentences. I think you inferred a tone, and responded off that.
Itās nebulous from my perspective what the consequences would have been attaching my name to these posts. My exās ex, who is a CIA contractor, probably has access to PRISM if that helps make sense of where I am coming from. The personal history there between the ex and her ex is enough that I am concerned, hence the burner account.
I have many more things to say about clearance levels, govvies, etc. if it proves relevant in other threads. Short version: itās crazy what the govāt will put up with if you have great skills. If you have no skills, you donāt get clearance unless youāre a saint. The latter is quite googleable. Quite a long standing issue.
i donāt think talking to Snowdon is their objective. Just the oposite, silencing him andf revenge.
2 Likes
I think you inferred a tone, and responded off that.
Maybe. Itās pretty victim blamey though, and you do seem sympathetic to far reaching state surveillance power, at least in principle.
I am not sympathetic to such powers. I am not blaming the victim. Thatās you overlaying your kneejerk perspective on what I wrote.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
