TSA To Block Websites With “Controversial Opinions”
The Transportation Security Administration will block all websites that contain “controversial opinion” from its federal computers in the latest example of how Internet censorship is expanding in both the private and public sector as the federal government prepares to push through a power grab that will empower President Obama to shut down the world wide web with an emergency decree.
There seem to be an alarming number of unsubstantiated claims here. Doesn't bode well when you post up stuff that strains credibility and makes it appear you have no critical thinking skills.
If someone tells me that "An epidemic of TSA abuse at the nation’s airports has spread since 9/11" or that "A large number of people have simply refused to travel to America anymore because entering the country is like trying to get into the old East Germany. This is killing the tourism industry and costing hundreds of millions of dollars each year" or that "No less than a third of tourists vowed never to return to America after experiencing the treatment of Homeland Security officials at ports of entry. By early 2007, the U.S. had lost around 60 million visitors as a result of the stifling and intrusive security measures implemented since 9/11" I want to see the data or at least WHERE THESE CLAIMS COME FROM.
Certainly, the most central and sweeping claim in the piece is that "This is all about preventing federal employees from figuring out that their entire career is nothing more than acting as goon enforcers for the state as America sinks further into tyranny."
So where is the evidence? There isn't a single scrap of evidence or sourcing of info ANYWHERE at the link. The only source cited is the link for an investigation by the Discover American Partnership, but that link goes somewhere else, not to a study and the study is mentioned only in relation to a single supposed fact that is not relevant to the issue.
Sorry, but on first appraisal, this looks to be the worst of the worst of internet pseudo-news. If we want to form opinions about what's going to be blocked at TSA, lets wait and see what gets blocked. Personally, I think they ought to block access to porn at every USG agency except those that investigate them for fraud and various other internet crimes. TSA workers do not need to surf the web at work.
Looks like a really, really bad piece of pseudo-journalism and a perfect example of how the new media has no sense of responsibility toward the facts or objectivity. Doesn't matter if it's red or blue; it's junk.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Looks like a really, really bad piece of pseudo-journalism and a perfect example of how the new media has no sense of responsibility toward the facts or objectivity.
Not too different from the old media. If it fits the narrative there will be little or no fact checking.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
BTW tabloids - places that make up stories - have always been popular in America. The difficulty is that once in a while they break real news (John Edwards) and it takes a while for the news to get traction.
The advantage of the new media is that you can talk back.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:The advantage of the new media is that you can talk back.
You had it right the first time, in the post before. The real advantage is that the narrative gets challenged, and, if interesting, deconstructed.
Until our collective benefactors get a managing handle on this newfangled media, it is going to remain a major thorn in their side, interfering with the dispensation of benefit to us, the proletariat.
GIThruster wrote:There seem to be an alarming number of unsubstantiated claims here. Doesn't bode well when you post up stuff that strains credibility and makes it appear you have no critical thinking skills.
If someone tells me that "An epidemic of TSA abuse at the nation’s airports has spread since 9/11" or that "A large number of people have simply refused to travel to America anymore because entering the country is like trying to get into the old East Germany. This is killing the tourism industry and costing hundreds of millions of dollars each year" or that "No less than a third of tourists vowed never to return to America after experiencing the treatment of Homeland Security officials at ports of entry. By early 2007, the U.S. had lost around 60 million visitors as a result of the stifling and intrusive security measures implemented since 9/11" I want to see the data or at least WHERE THESE CLAIMS COME FROM.
Certainly, the most central and sweeping claim in the piece is that "This is all about preventing federal employees from figuring out that their entire career is nothing more than acting as goon enforcers for the state as America sinks further into tyranny."
So where is the evidence? There isn't a single scrap of evidence or sourcing of info ANYWHERE at the link. The only source cited is the link for an investigation by the Discover American Partnership, but that link goes somewhere else, not to a study and the study is mentioned only in relation to a single supposed fact that is not relevant to the issue.
Sorry, but on first appraisal, this looks to be the worst of the worst of internet pseudo-news. If we want to form opinions about what's going to be blocked at TSA, lets wait and see what gets blocked. Personally, I think they ought to block access to porn at every USG agency except those that investigate them for fraud and various other internet crimes. TSA workers do not need to surf the web at work.
Looks like a really, really bad piece of pseudo-journalism and a perfect example of how the new media has no sense of responsibility toward the facts or objectivity. Doesn't matter if it's red or blue; it's junk.
Actually, almost all the stuff in that piece is entirely accurate.
I myself flew this past year for the first time in a decade, and boy was I shocked. I am simply disgusted with what the TSA is turning our country into. The TSA is the worst big brother organization this nations government has organized in its entire history. What is worse is its head now considers US military veterans and gun owners to be the biggest threats to national security, not muslim terrorists.
The Second Amendment is the only homeland security that real Americans need. I can guarantee you that if the FAA's ban on law abiding citizens carrying weapons on board airliners was not in effect, 9/11 would never have happened.
Well, poorly placed shots can cause atmospheric pressure differences to rip an aircraft apart.
I guess 9/11 wouldn't have happened, but I'm not sure how safe aircraft would be... on board an aircraft is one place I can see logic in restricting anything that can pierce the fuselage.
Even without firearms, when people were willing to stand up and fight one of the aircraft went down in a field, rather than its target... pretty much same result as with a bunch of firearms going off (the terrorists don't care if they die).
But I agree that some airline restrictions are completely ludicrous and don't address the real threats that terrorists can pose. Heck, solid, unbreakable locked cockpit doors and protocols to prevent pilots from leaving the cockpit or giving up control of their plane would have prevented 9/11. Someone's shaving gel or toothpaste should not constitute a problem.
I had the opportunity to fly back to N. America from Heathrow Airport 2 years ago. There was a checkpoint Charlie type security site 5 minutes from the airport, then even more security at the entrance. Had to take off my shoes for inspection after ten days continuous wear. The smell is probably more deadly for the inspectors than the bomb threat. But to cap things off, once you get through to the flight lounge, the first thing you see is stacks of liquor and cigarettes at the duty free. The duty free probably kills a million times more people with vice than what any terrorists can accomplish.
CaptainBeowulf wrote:Well, poorly placed shots can cause atmospheric pressure differences to rip an aircraft apart.
No, not really. Hollywood, of course, looks for the most 'bang for the buck.' But you're looking at less than 10 PSI at most, with a hole less than a half-inch in diameter unless you're packing serious weaponry. Aircraft-grade aluminum isn't that weak, or (in the case of aircraft skins) that thin.
There have been cases of aircraft hulls rupturing from pressure cycles, but that was from metal fatigue and accumulated stresses. A simple hole won't cause it, at anything resembling the pressures found in normal flight. And puncturing a window, likewise. They're three layers thick, and the plastic is pretty forgiving. It doesn't shatter and leave open an 8-inch hole.
Hollywood physics and reality don't match. What a shocker!
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
CaptainBeowulf wrote:Well, poorly placed shots can cause atmospheric pressure differences to rip an aircraft apart.
I guess 9/11 wouldn't have happened, but I'm not sure how safe aircraft would be... on board an aircraft is one place I can see logic in restricting anything that can pierce the fuselage.
Even without firearms, when people were willing to stand up and fight one of the aircraft went down in a field, rather than its target... pretty much same result as with a bunch of firearms going off (the terrorists don't care if they die).
But I agree that some airline restrictions are completely ludicrous and don't address the real threats that terrorists can pose. Heck, solid, unbreakable locked cockpit doors and protocols to prevent pilots from leaving the cockpit or giving up control of their plane would have prevented 9/11. Someone's shaving gel or toothpaste should not constitute a problem.
Arm the pilots.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:The advantage of the new media is that you can talk back.
You had it right the first time, in the post before. The real advantage is that the narrative gets challenged, and, if interesting, deconstructed.
Until our collective benefactors get a managing handle on this newfangled media, it is going to remain a major thorn in their side, interfering with the dispensation of benefit to us, the proletariat.
I'm afraid there's no way for anyone to get hold of the new media. The market is large enough, and people are stupid enough, that they simply flock to those news sources that tell them what agrees with their world view. People have grown accustomed not to re-examination of their pre-concieved notions, but rather in reinforcing their fragile views and more importantly in avoiding what does not agree with them.
There no fix for this utter lack of wisdom.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
The cold truth. People tend to remember and act on the first thing placed in front of them, regardless on its veracity.
Welcome to the Real Global War, "Information". It gives whole new meaning to asymmetric attacks.
Ask the Israelis about it. Ask the Turks about it. Ask Hollywood.
The best lesson I have learned over the years was simple guidance from a former boss of mine, the first report is normally wrong, wait for the second, then act.
One bullet hole in the fuselage may be fine, I was thinking more about a whole bunch of holes. Also depends on whether electrical or hydraulic lines get hit. Also depends on aircraft altitude and external air pressure. Yes, pressurized passenger planes have survived with holes in their fuselages, but they can also have major problems.
Armed air marshal/pilots seem sufficient to me. They'll unlikely miss more than once or twice.
They put an ad on the radio with some famous paralyzed woman. She talked about how you should be tolerant even when they do something stupid, like ask a woman in a wheelchair to take off her shoes, or stand up. I got the entirely wrong message from it, of course. Instead of seeing how well they were trying to do their job, it told me how poorly they were doing, that they used such moronic examples and tried to tell people that such things are okay. If you can't figure out that a woman in a wheelchair is in a wheelchair for a reason, how can I expect you to spot a terrorist?
Instead of seeing how well they were trying to do their job, it told me how poorly they were doing, that they used such moronic examples and tried to tell people that such things are okay. If you can't figure out that a woman in a wheelchair is in a wheelchair for a reason, how can I expect you to spot a terrorist?