Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DHS Still Stonewalling On Body Scanning Ruling One Year Later

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the maybe-they're-just-really-lazy dept.

Security 242

OverTheGeicoE writes "About a year ago, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on EPIC v. DHS, a lawsuit that sought to end TSA's use of body scanners. The Court found that DHS violated federal law by not seeking public comment before using body scanners as a primary search method. They ordered TSA to take public comment on its body scanning policy but did not require TSA to suspend its use of the scanners during the comment period. Several months later nothing had been done yet. One year later TSA has still done nothing, and even EPIC, the original plaintiff, seems to have given up. Others have apparently picked up the torch, however. Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, has posted a piece on Ars Technica about TSA's violation of the court order. He also started a petition on Whitehouse.gov asking TSA to comply with the order. An earlier petition ended with a non-response from TSA Administrator John Pistole. Will the latest petition fare any better, even in an election year?"

cancel ×

242 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Show us your papers (1, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40621567)

Ve haf vays to make you submit to full body scans. <puffs cigarette>

Re:Show us your papers (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40621653)

I remember a country called the United States of America. It never really lived up to its boasted promise or potential, but hey! It was something at one time, you know?

Now it's gone. So it really doesn't matter, I guess.

Re:Show us your papers (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622063)

What amazes me is how many waste their time with those stupid petitions. I mean after the first two or three prettily worded 'Fuck you peasant LOL" responses shouldn't everyone have learned by now those things are as fucking worthless as a suggestion box with a waste basket for a bottom?

The sad part is there really isn't any choice anymore, hell you may as well not even vote. I mean WTF are you gonna vote FOR? Rich money whoring sellout A, or rich money whoring sellout B? Does anybody think a McSame presidency would have been any different from a Nobama? Or that Mittens will do ANYTHING differently, other than put a different spin on it?

Lets face it folks, until things get bad enough we have a full on collapse and an Arab Spring all we are gonna get is what the 1%ers want us to have, nice little corporate puppets that do what they are told and heel when their chains are yanked. In the end we'll end up with MORE draconian laws, MORE power and control for those at the top and LESS for everyone that isn't in their little club. As Buffet said years ago "There has been class warfare for years, and we've won"

Re:Show us your papers (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622199)

It's easier to do nothing.

Personally, I only see 3 possible end games:
1. We take back our society by voting.
2. We take back our society by (violent) revolution.
3. Some horrible doomsday scenario where the rich people are rich until the world ends.

If you don't want to try option 1, all that's left are 2 and 3. I really don't like those options, and thus don't see the need to give up on voting and educating the public just yet. Obama IS better than the alternative, he's just not jesus.

Re:Show us your papers (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622255)

Obama's stance on copyright is every bit as draconian. He doesn't care about the constitution at all. Neither do his opponents.

Re:Show us your papers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622305)

It's a good thing there's a lot more to being president than his views on copyright..

And yes, I disagree with his views on that too. Doesn't mean I want to give extra tax breaks to the top 1%.

Re:Show us your papers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623079)

I've heard it said that Democracy depends on four boxes; soap, ballot, jury and ammo, use in that order.

It's up to each individual to decide where they stand in this order.

Re:Show us your papers (2)

discordia666 (940470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624079)

Which is why we're screwed. The 99% have the soap and the ballot. The 1% have the money to heavily influence the soap and the ballot and they have all the money for the jury and ammo.

Re:Show us your papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622237)

Vote libertarian. I never really paid much attention the libertarian folks, but now I do. Screw it. They're the only ones who seem to respect the constitution, individual rights, getting the government out of my home/genitalia/etc.

Re:Show us your papers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622735)

Oh... But we're CRAZY! Didn't anyone ever tell you we are CRAZY?! Go ahead THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY! IT'S A TWO (snicker) PARTY SYSTEM!

--libertarian

Re:Show us your papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623023)

A libertarian vote is a vote for Obama and tyranny.

I believe in most libertarian policies, fine. The president elect will be a Republican or a Democrat this is not debatable. Libertarians take but a small percentage of the national vote. Go ahead and p1ss away your vote because that is what you will be doing.

The ONLY option is to force the Republicans back into the box we call the Constitution - and that means to support and promote many libertarian ideals.

Get to work patriots, there is much to do.

Re:Show us your papers (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622659)

For a moment there I thought I was reading a student radical newspaper from 1967.

Re:Show us your papers (2, Insightful)

Crosshair84 (2598247) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622741)

Lets be honest, many of the 99% are just as culpable. They continue to believe the lie that there is a free lunch and they can continue to get something for nothing. There is no NEED for the two parties to change because the 99% will continue to vote depending on who has the R or D in front of their name. If the masses of people really wanted change then Ron Paul or whoever would win as a write in candidate and nobody could stop them.

The only way I see the system changing right now is when we go the way of the Soviet Union. The current system is a sinking ship, the mistakes have already been made, the only question worth discussing is how bad things will get. Had we started transitioning 15-20 years ago, like Canada did, things would not have been so bad and we would have had time to fix other problems. Unfortunately now, no matter what we do, a lot of people are going to get soaked.

Re:Show us your papers (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622755)

What amazes me is how many waste their time with those stupid petitions.

It amazes me that anyone bothers to write them. It only takes five seconds to click "Sign". That's a fairly small amount of effort, so even if there is only an infinitesimal chance of any forward progress, it is worth spending those five seconds. :-)

Re:Show us your papers (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624553)

only 5 seconds to get your name added to a gov watchlist.

(no, I'm not at all kidding)

Re:Show us your papers (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622767)

Arab Spring? Engineered "colour revolutions".

You really don't want one...

Re:Show us your papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623865)

Really... It's like when Apple sponsors Woodstock.

Re:Show us your papers (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624365)

Are you old enough to remember the "Us Festival"?

Re:Show us your papers (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622823)

To be honest, I think the answer may be to vote for a third party (Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, etc.) and look at places to live elsewhere. Despite what the media tries to tell you, the "third world" isn't just grass huts and civil wars. Granted, you might not have a Starbucks every 3 blocks but most of those countries are truly more free and they have many more opportunities. Plus the cost of living is much lower.

Re:Show us your papers (1, Interesting)

thomst (1640045) | more than 2 years ago | (#40623405)

hairyfeet inquired:

Does anybody think a McSame presidency would have been any different from a Nobama?

I do.

If McLame had been elected, there'd have been no auto industry bailout, and most of the American automakers would have gone the way of the dodo - taking with them all their employees' jobs, plus those of their parts and raw materials suppliers, and their dealerships (think "service departments", not just salemen). Plus their credit acceptance organizations would have gone with 'em, and that would have added more tens of billions in bad debt to the meltdown, and greatly contributed to the credit crunch. Plus, no consumer credit protection agency, for sure, because McLame would have vetoed it. Plus no healthcare reform of any kind, so people like my wife and I - both of whom have pre-existing medical conditions - would have remained locked out of any possibility of obtaining medical insurance. Plus Osama bin Laden would still be alive.

Oh, and when McLame keeled over dead from the pressures of the job, we'd be stuck with Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin as Commander in Chief.

So, yeah, as disappointing as Obama's first term has been in many ways, I think there'd be significant differences in the current state of affairs had McLame been elected, instead. And not, you know, in a good way ...

Re:Show us your papers (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40623593)

What amazes me is how many waste their time with those stupid petitions

Well, I don't use the ones that require javascript (which means no whitehouse petitions) but I think it's useful to add your name to a list of people willing to be counted. Of course, it's also potentially dangerous if our government lives up to its promise to become the next iteration of the fucking third reich.

Re:Show us your papers (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624989)

I sign those by the EFF as well, but I have ZERO doubt that me and you are on a list somewhere. Whether they will actually DO anything with that list is unknown ATM but I have zero doubt they exist and anybody that doesn't follow the line most likely are on at least one if not multiple.

Of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40624065)

I realize that you do not want this. However, my position allows me to force this on you, and get away with it. Further, I benefit from doing so.

Therefore, your desires will not prevent me from forcing this upon you. You will just have to accept it, and benefit me by doing so, whether you like it or not.

Good day.

Re:Show us your papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40624217)

Hahaha...arab spring. You mean the fascists rising to power? That already happened, and you voted them into office. His name is Obama.

Re:Show us your papers (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624557)

Well, somebody has put cash behind it instead of just a signature. The Cato institute may push just about anything, but they never, ever do it for free.

Re:Show us your papers (1)

gmanterry (1141623) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622799)

I remember a country called the United States of America. It never really lived up to its boasted promise or potential, but hey! It was something at one time, you know?

Now it's gone. So it really doesn't matter, I guess.

Too bad you can't be modded up to 100.

Re:Show us your papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622813)

Something seems really fishy about those polls on whitehouse.gov. If you scroll down to see the other signers, you'll see multiple people given the same signature #. Hmm....

Pure distraction (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40621615)

The signers will still vote for Obama and toe the party line.

Re:Pure distraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40621675)

Thank you for spelling toe correctly.

Re:Pure distraction (5, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40621899)

Hi. I already signed the petition. I have no intention of voting for Obama (or the other guy). I'm not particularly enamored with either major party. I'd just like to see the TSA held accountable and forced to respond to public criticism. Isn't that something every person who travels through America can agree on?

Re:Pure distraction (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622129)

some will vote for O. some will vote for R. some will not vote.

and yet ALL will be ignored.

petition or not, those who rule by fear will not care what the population wants!

and guess what, both 'guys' have enjoyed ruling by fear. and the next one, will to! bet on it.

Re:Pure distraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622389)

I will vote for R because there is not emotional support for R. The same cannot be said for O. I can understand the viewpoint of trying to get rich. I can't understand the emotional viewpoint composed in unknown and hidden history.

Re:Pure distraction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622573)

Those who let themselves be ruled by fear, they are the problem.

It happens everywhere; countries get richer, standards rise. People become unable to handle danger, risk and death. Do not accept it as a natural part of life anymore. They start freaking out about minor threats (radical islamists, pedophiles, etc).

The sociopathic construct that are governments/corporatations are never late to capitalize on those fears.

And while I'm the first to say that those who let themselves be ruled by fear and scare tactics deserve [insert whatever nastiness], they are the same drones who will happily assimilate to whatever neo-fascist/nazist/whatever regime is coming. As long as they feel safe.

Two awesome quotes come to mind:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. / Ben Franklin

And I am reminded, on this holy day, of the sad story of Kitty Genovese. As you all may remember, a long time ago, almost thirty years ago, this poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered her calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away. Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. / Monsignor - Boondock Saints

Re:Pure distraction (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622713)

In general, I would agree, but I would not agree that terrorists or pedophiles are "minor threats". The former is probably not a significant threat on U.S. soil, but is a very real threat to Americans living abroad in some places; the second is not a threat at all, but rather a type of person who should be subjected to greater scrutiny because there is an elevated risk that he or she might be a threat.

Re:Pure distraction (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622951)

; the second is not a threat at all, but rather a type of person who should be subjected to greater scrutiny because there is an elevated risk that he or she might be a threat.

So you'd favor the Department of Precrime then? Perhaps create an "undesireable persons" list that the government surely wouldn't abuse its power by adding new groups to over time?

We have abad habit in this country of ignoring constitutional protections when it comes to criminals who we really don't like. All the absurd police powers in the patriot act were already there for drug dealers, we just added a new label you could apply to someone to get a warrentless wiretap or search. We put up with the TSA, a farce of Monty Python proportions, searching people without probable cause because we have a "really bad person" label we can apply.

I feel we should prioritize basic constitutional protections over "being tough on $REALLY_BAD_PEOPLE". I also feel I'm in the minority on that. I mean, sure $REALLY_BAD_PEOPLE are really bad, but who knows what group the government will find convenient to add to that pool next decade?

Re:Pure distraction (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623507)

Hello. I'm a pedophile.

Have I ever touched, groomed or inappropriately talked with a child? No.
Will I ever? No.
Do I have a sex drive? Yes.
Is my sex drive high? No.
Why not? Because I'm an addict.
Why is that? Because I wish I wasn't a pedophile and was normal.
Will I ever be normal? No.
Will I ever molest a child? No.
Will I ever stop self-medicating with narcotics? Probably not.
Will I ever be married, have kids, be a social person, be successful? No.
Will I ever be a happy person? Probably not, because I have difficulty loving and accepting myself, including integrating my orientation with the other parts of my personality.

Do I need to "be subjected to greater scrutiny?" No, I'm a red-blooded American as anyone else and deserve my dignity, privacy, and right to be unmolested just like any other person, American or not, child or adult.

Re:Pure distraction (0)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624555)

Hello mr pedophile.

Congrats on admitting your problem, and I hope you resist the urge to molest a child.

But if I catch you doing it, heaven help the poor sucker who gets between your testicles and my bowie knife.

I too, am a red blooded american, and the parental instinct is very strong and protective.

As long as you keep your hands away from our kids I'll stand up for you though.

Re:Pure distraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40624753)

Why don't you leave America and live overseas? There are plenty of countries where cultural attitudes towards sexuality more closely resemble "Brave New World". You could kick the narcotics and self-hatred and switch to an anti-depressant with similar effects. Many SSRIs are known to have a "Meth-Dick" impact.

In another country, you could actually see a psychiatrist and get help without fear of prosecution. AC's post is interesting because it's a reminder that not all pedophiles are child rapists. This false-equivalency resembles the past where negro=rapist, or homosexual=rapist.

Living in an era of warrantless wiretapping, TSA Bodyscanners, and ever-expanding police powers, it's interesting to me as a libertarian to watch the inconsistent respect for human dignity and body integrity that goes with out societies outrage over the rare instances of rape of white women and children. Meanwhile, every day TSA Agents, and drug cops are using nitrile gloves to fingerfuck the last shreds of personal privacy.

It's all power, force, and intimidation used to assault the individual's right to be free from arbitrary and unreasonable searches, and secure in their persons.

I would love to see people as outraged over the daily rapes committed by our government as they are over the occasional instance of plebes cracking under economic pressure, or the cycle of abuse passing itself on to another generation. Today's reviled pedophiles are usually yesterday's innocent defenseless victims of abuse. As usual, victimized twice once they are grown up & forgotten from the focus of public attention. Just like Yellow Ribbons and Veterans.

Life is just a media-fueled passion play with the most vocal & ignorant members of society taking center stage.

Re:Pure distraction (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624263)

So you'd favor the Department of Precrime then?

Within strict limits, perhaps. For example, if the government knows of a website where people trade child porn, it would make sense for them to infiltrate that website and monitor the situation to determine if new children are being actively harmed by anyone in that circle. If they determine that this is happening, then the government rightfully should try to track the people down and put them in jail.

Re:Pure distraction (5, Interesting)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622989)

Which is the real reason for the second amendment.
With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.
With an unarmed populace the people fear the government. This is tyranny.
Get guns. Film the police. Vote no on almost every new law. Vote in every election. Vote for the nobody. Vote for the new guy.
Never vote for the incumbent. Never vote for his most likely opponent. Stay involved. Question authority. Do not fly.
Break their power over us by arming yourself. (Guns/Information)
Break their power over us by disarming them. (Money)
You do not get a small accountable government by just demanding it of them. You must demand it of yourself.
You must be self sufficient as much as possible. You can not effectively hold power over those you owe everything to.
Pay your bills. Do not over spend. Save. Work. Expect nothing from them and more from yourself.
Support your family. Hold your values.
Remember. These people are elected. This is our fault. We must fix it.

Re:Pure distraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623255)

That sure sounds like a lot of work.

It is *so* much easier to just watch reality TV and complain online, hoping someone else will fight my battles for me.

Re:Pure distraction (2)

jrroche (1937546) | more than 2 years ago | (#40623429)

Which is the real reason for the second amendment. With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.

Let's be honest, even if every person in America bought a gun, the government still has tanks, jets, bunker busters, and enough other high tech, high yield weaponry, armor, and other gadgets, a full-on rebellion would be almost impossible to pull off. The Second Amendment may have kept people safe from the government in 1776, but that was when pretty much anyone could arm themselves as well as the military. The handgun you keep in a safe in your closet is not going to protect from the police state you're so worried about, it's just another distraction you've been provided to keep you pacified (rather ironically).

Vote no on almost every new law. Vote in every election. Vote for the nobody. Vote for the new guy. Never vote for the incumbent. Never vote for his most likely opponent.

This is absolute nonsense. Vote no on almost every new law? What about when you vote no but the law passes anyway, then later a new law comes up to repeal the old one? Should you vote no on that too? What if a law comes up to cut taxes or ease gun control? Vote no one those too, just to fuck with the system? And always vote for the nobody, never the incumbent? I know this is hard to swallow but whatever your ideology, it's a big country and there's always some incumbent out there who agrees with you and is pushing your agenda, and is running against some incompetent nobody who fiercely disagrees with you. But hey, vote against your own interests anyway because surely if every problem isn't fixed in two years it must mean your representative is corrupt and it's time to try someone new.

You must be self sufficient as much as possible. You can not effectively hold power over those you owe everything to. Pay your bills. Do not over spend. Save. Work. Expect nothing from them and more from yourself. Support your family. Hold your values. Remember. These people are elected. This is our fault. We must fix it.

This part is good advice.

Not so sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40624457)

you're correct in saying "Let's be honest, even if every person in America bought a gun, the government still has tanks, jets, bunker busters, and enough other high tech, high yield weaponry, armor, and other gadgets, a full-on rebellion would be almost impossible to pull off.".

I note how much trouble dedicated combatants caused us in Iraq and continue to cause us in Afghanistan (and how much trouble they caused us in Vietnam, as well). The critical ingredient is dedication, the willingness to die for one's cause. Their effectiveness is amplified by the degree to which they cause us to hemorrhrage money, which is after all the *real* lifeblood of our country - just ask any of the 1% when they're not on camera.

I think that if a substantial fraction of Americans (say, ~5%, which these days is 15 million people) actually decided that it was worth their lives to bring down the government we have, it could well happen. Not saying I'm certain of that outcome, but I have a lot more respect for dedication, numbers, and low-tech weapons vs. high-tech, well-trained but sparse military than I used to.

Re:Pure distraction (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624613)

Amendment may have kept people safe from the government in 1776, but that was when pretty much anyone could arm themselves as well as the military

Artillery and a pile of other expensive and effective things mean that even back then the argument doesn't hold. The origin myth of the USA being won by a few civilians with antique muskets freezing in the woods is rubbish. Professional military (eg. Washington, a LOT of other soldiers, and real military equipment) and the support of the French (don't you guys hate admitting that) won you a country.

Actually, no. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623539)

Don't just say "hurr guns 2nd amendment." That's stupid. That's beyond stupid, it's empty and vapid and useless.

Say: here's what we're going to do. Here's how it's going to be _better_. Here's how we're going to run the country. "Small accountable government" is nice, but empty and vapid and useless. My "small accountable government" gives free education and health care to everyone, and cuts the military to 1/1000th of its current size. I'd guess yours does something different.

Don't just offer meaningless "rah rah we need guns" nonsense. Offer new, real, detailed, focused plans on what you want to see. Get others to sign onto your plans. Describe what the transition period would look like. Offer a safe way through. (Families won't sign onto anything unless it's safe, and that's a fair requirement.) Don't just suggest an armed revolt--how moronic is that idea, anyway??--offer something on the other side. That way, we may not even need an armed revolt to get there. We may be able to just build new systems, and replace the current old-and-busted with new hotness without violence or bloodshed.

But not until we know what new hotness looks like, and I mean really looks like, down to what we'd need to do to get there, and what we'd do once we got there.

Childish (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624333)

With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.
With an unarmed populace the people fear the government. This is tyranny.

You are a child. You may be 30, or 40, or 50 years old, but you are a child. Life is so much more complex than your simplistic little assertions. The government doesn't fear you because you're armed -- they have bigger guns, better guns, more guns. Nor does a gun give a sane man courage. A gun won't protect you from chemicals in your drinking water. It won't make the insurance company approve your claim, or stop your job from being sent overseas. The world can, and will, make you hurt and your pitiful little chunk of metal won't do anything to stop it. A rabbit's foot would be as effective.

Even if you had an army behind you, that won't give you utopia. It'll give you Somalia.

Vote no on almost every new law. Vote in every election. Vote for the nobody. Vote for the new guy.
Never vote for the incumbent. Never vote for his most likely opponent.

Simplistic rules never work. What if the law is trying to help? Do you vote no because its not perfect? What if the incumbent is better than the alternatives? Do you vote against the better candidate just because? That's not a path to improvement. You know how when people are driving, and catch themselves slipping off the road, and start a cycle of overcorrection that makes things even worse? That's what you're doing.

The path to a better country is the obvious, pragmatic one. Do your homework, and vote for the best candidate in every election. Even if you hate him, if he's better than the alternative, he should get your vote. Local elections and primaries are the best targets, as the smaller pool of voters means that motivated, informed people can make a bigger difference. The people with the money and power are playing a long game. They want you to give up hope and stop fighting for progress, which is exactly what you're doing when you throw away a vote or put your trust in guns. You must never give up. It's not gonna get better next year, or five years from now, or ten. It took over thirty years to dig the hole we're in. It'll take at least that long to get out of it.

But what if our system has reached (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40624497)

a tipping point? That is, the increasing concentration of wealth and power to control our society has degraded the measures you recommend to the point that they are genuinely no longer effective, no matter how patiently and vigorously pursued?

I concur with your sentiments almost completely. However, I'm no longer confident that our societal system remains connected to the control levers we have relied on for a couple of centuries. What then?

Re:Pure distraction (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624407)

Do you really think that your small arms are any real defense against violent suppression by the US government? That's the bit of Second Amendment ideology I've never understood: there's this fantasy that the civilians of the US with enough guns could stand up to the US military. If it came down to US Army and Marine units versus a semi-organized group of gun-toting libertarians, my guess is that the professionals would wipe the floor with the amateurs. That's for the simple reason that they're professionals - they've trained much more than you have, many of them have seen serious combat before, they're much better equipped than you are, and they have trained officers to lead and direct them. You, on the other hand, are probably not in combat shape, maybe train a few weekends a year, have probably not had to continue fighting after watching your best friend's head get blown off, and have no West Point graduates handy to tell you how to make your actions most effective.

Another way of thinking about it: If you had all the assault rifles you wanted, how long would you be able to defend yourself against a drone strike? How about against a tank? How long could you last in a siege with your communications cut off, your property surrounded so you can't leave, your assets frozen in case you somehow managed to get to a store where you could buy something? In all those scenarios, even with, say, 20 buddies, you're still going to lose if the US government decides to turn its guns on its population.

Re:Pure distraction (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624579)

you are right. things are not how they were 200+ yrs ago.

balance of power is forever lost when you have mega-super-giga-powers like the US and all the arms it controls.

you may have guns, but they have planes, tanks, chemicals, and even people that will shoot their own people. witness the brutality of the OWS and these were peaceful protesters that had force used against them. big wake-up call there to see our military police force. if the army won't fight the citizenry, the police surely will!

Re:Pure distraction (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624573)

The USA, a place where people can scream "smash the state" and still think that they are conservatives.
A government only really runs when it has the support of a lot of people, guns or not.

Interrestingly this is the contrary (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624881)

The funny things is , widespread distrust and fear of the governement is typically an US thing, most people I know from other countries (European) do not distrust or fear the governement (on the contrary they trust it too much IMHO) and we do not have the right to bear arm.

Re:Pure distraction (1)

santosh.k83 (2442182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624977)

Which is the real reason for the second amendment. With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom. With an unarmed populace the people fear the government. This is tyranny. Get guns. Film the police. Vote no on almost every new law. Vote in every election. Vote for the nobody. Vote for the new guy. Never vote for the incumbent. Never vote for his most likely opponent. Stay involved. Question authority. Do not fly. Break their power over us by arming yourself. (Guns/Information) Break their power over us by disarming them. (Money) You do not get a small accountable government by just demanding it of them. You must demand it of yourself. You must be self sufficient as much as possible. You can not effectively hold power over those you owe everything to. Pay your bills. Do not over spend. Save. Work. Expect nothing from them and more from yourself. Support your family. Hold your values. Remember. These people are elected. This is our fault. We must fix it.

Won't arming everyone simply lead to civil war and chaotic and impulsive violence? Can every single American be trusted with a gun? Look at places like Afghanistan where a significant fraction of the populace are armed; it sure is hell on earth.

Agree with your other points regarding voting and using knowledge as power, being self-sufficient, and family values.

I believe guns simply don't make for a stable society though.

Re:Pure distraction (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622251)

Some, sure. But here's the problem: The USA's first-past-the-post system all but guarantees that the winner of a presidential election will be one of two parties. In an ideal world, a third (or fourth, ...) party would be viable, but the reality is that it's not.

As such, it's perfectly rational to complain about some of the policies of candidate X while still voting for candidate X. You say, "Realistically speaking, the winner of the election will be candidate X or candidate Y. I have a problem with a specific policy of candidate X, but overall, I much prefer the policies of X over Y. Therefore I will complain about this policy, but still hope candidate X wins (or candidate Y loses)."

You can argue that the third-party stance creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, but you can also be pragmatic and realize that that's life.

I personally have a number of problems with Obama, but the things I don't like about him are basically the areas where he's acted like a Republican (or, at least, like the modern Republican party). Realistically, I can have a pro-police-state candidate who is at least somewhat socially tolerant, or a pro-police-state candidate who is not as socially tolerant. It may be "hold your nose and vote", but I also realize that the ideal candidate for me could never get elected, so why not vote for the less-bad guy?

Although if my state is more or less guaranteed to go for Obama, I might just vote Dave Barry.

Re:Pure distraction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623329)

Although if my state is more or less guaranteed to go for Obama, I might just vote Dave Barry.

Or if your state is more or less guaranteed to go for Romney. Perhaps a dozen states are in play; in all others, the third-party=waste is bogus (at least until more people realize it's bogus, which paradox is why we need voting reform, but it's ok for now).

Re:Pure distraction (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624567)

What's much more insidious is that the two party system effectively locks out any little guys that won't accept bribes from corporate america.

It's easier to keep the gravy train from derailing when you don't have any competition with scruples.

Re:Pure distraction (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622439)

The signers will still vote for Obama

I'm guessing that many of the signers of a petition started and promoted by someone associated with the Cato Institute wouldn't vote for Obama independently of his position on this issue.

But, yeah, I doubt that there are many who will sign the petition but who, aside from this issue, would be likely to vote for Obama that would switch based on this issue.

Confiscate, confiscate, confiscate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40621659)

Body scanners are expensive. THey cost us tax dollars. Not only is the fact of their cost taking from other more worthy projects our society could invest in, but also the rich hording cash or idle assets hurts our progress. This is why, as a society, we need to LEGALLY justify CONFISCATING Bill Gates' money to fund much needed programs and research. We need it for our seniors' pacemakers, the poor's appliance needs, and researching WHAT to do with Martian soil once we are able to land a person on it with a mass spec device. The fact that Bill Gates is allowed to keep all those billions is itself A CRIME and we are condemned to HELL for it!

Will we ever learn? (5, Insightful)

gallondr00nk (868673) | more than 2 years ago | (#40621805)

This is exactly the sort of shit that happened with Hoover's FBI. More and more resources and power are granted to the point where the organisation can effectively be above the law, especially local or state rulings.

This is the result of 11 years of the "war on terror". These sort of behemoth power structures were inevitable.

No (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40621841)

History teaches us that we do not learn from history.

Re:No (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40621901)

History teaches us that we do not learn from history.

I have no way to know if that's true.

Re:Will we ever learn? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622647)

War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Homosexuality

Re:Will we ever learn? (2, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624639)

The TSA and Homeland Security in general are well beyond Hoover's FBI. It's turned into a vast welfare organisation funnelling so much money into so many pockets that it would probably be political suicide to kill it. You'll probably have to wait for an outgoing President that hates his own party before anyone seriously takes it on.

Re:Will we ever learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40624773)

so another reason to vote Obama? Will be outgoing, hates most of whats wrong, kind of mouthy and stubborn? sounds good!

Contempt of Court (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40621829)

Can't the TSA be held in contempt of court and its officers jailed?

Re:Contempt of Court (1)

Stu_28 (83254) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622203)

I would imagine the next step would be to issue a ruling finding that the TSA violated federal law and requiring the suspension of the scanners until the public comment has been done and the results tallied...

Re:Contempt of Court (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622407)

No. Literally. They have to be found first to be acting in a fashion "arbitrary and capricious". A very high standard in a court with a "presumption in favor of the regulator". No, I'm not kidding.

http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFE-03-16-09.pdf

The original planitff has given up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40621857)

so is it an ..... EPIC FAIL?

The only way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40621897)

I've experienced similar at a local level. The only way to get action is if some high level TSA official goes to prison for contempt of court.

And don't hold your breath that will even happen.

Re:The only way (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622165)

1 question: who created the TSA?

why blame the TSA? blame those (the party) that created it! the thing that got created is just doing what its told. guys at the TSA are still peons; the real power brokers are in washington and they are 100% to blame for this.

TSA flunkies are flunkies. I don't blame them THAT much. I blame their masters.

Re:The only way (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624877)

You're right on one point. Their masters must be blamed. I absolutely blame the present administration for allowing them to continue to exist for the last 3.5 years.

Stonewalling huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40621989)

Want until you need a medical procedure and you don't like your treatment options.

Good luck taking them to court proles. Shut up and do what you are told. Wait.

Sue? Bwahahahaa. You can sue, sure. You sue the state on the terms of the state.

We are all screwed thanks to you Obama drones, and we know this place is lousy with them.

How are those unemployment numbers going drones? How is it being on the dole?

Feh.

Re:Stonewalling huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622065)

I like your trolling style. Can I subscribe to your troll newsletter?

Re:Stonewalling huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622167)

Substance free comment. Thanks for reading.

Yes you may, try this:

http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2012/06/mark-levins-epic-take-down-of-supreme-court-over-obamacare-ruling-audio/

Re:Stonewalling huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622701)

Bot you do seem to be a coward huh? No substance whatsoever? Nothing? Come on drone, back up your man?

Here's another.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0712/1224319860184.html

"In an indication that the most likely next step is QE3 – in which the Fed would make outright purchases of assets such as long-term treasury bonds..."

Do you understand the mechanics behind "quantitative easing"?

It's a TAX on all citizens and non citizens alike. The sate steals your money (by printing more dollars reducing the value of the dollars you own - if you even have a job.). Obama is a liar, and you know it. Enjoy paying your taxes drone.

Hurry up and provide some substance drone before admins delete this thread because we all know they hate to see truth.

Go on genius, we are all waiting.

Re:Stonewalling huh? (1, Insightful)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624409)

Posting as AC then calling someone else a coward is cognitive dissonance at its best! Obviously you do notm understand the word truth.

Re:Stonewalling huh? (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624405)

Funny how that never happens in Australia, you have excellent public health care and none of the problems idiots in the US
claim exist with public healthcare. A society without public health care is not civilized. And why do I hear so many stories of your much vaunted private system not covering a lot of treatments. typical AC bullshit.

Growing Fast... (1)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622027)

There were around 900 this morning when I signed; currently nearing 6000 out of 20,000 needed.

Re:Growing Fast... (2)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622253)

Thank you, citizens, we now have your names for our no-fly, terrorists, and political enemies lists.

Re:Growing Fast... (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622585)

As of this moment, there are 6143, including mine. I've also sent the link to a friend of mine who (I think) has a login there. He's pretty far out to the left and tends to vote for the Democrats without even thinking about it, but he'll probably sign this one. As I pointed out to him, this is exactly the type of transparancy Obama was talking about four years ago.

Someone violated a court order (5, Insightful)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622083)

Isn't someone supposed to get arrested?

Re:Someone violated a court order (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622277)

Isnt there some contempt of court or something?

Re:Someone violated a court order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623525)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78235.html

Holder was voted in Contempt of Congress, first time for a Secretary position in the history of the country. The DC District Attourney decided to not prosecute. This was over Holder/Obama keeping legally requested documents from an oversite committee (with bipartsian support).

Obama proved himself a dictator that answers to no one, not Congress, not the people. Why would he answer these petty TSA requests? What are they going to do? Put him on double secret probation with no consequences?

Re:Someone violated a court order (1)

freakinangry (991056) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622657)

Yes... you, for questioning authority.

Re:Someone violated a court order (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624577)

Knowing that it's the TSA they'll probably whip out the state secrets card and have the case dismissed in the interests of national security.

Fascist States of America (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622089)

In other words, our fascist government just does whatever the hell it wants and no one can do a damn thing about it. Film at 11.

We are Germany in 1935 or so. Back then, low level German civil servants did a splendid job enforcing the fascist Nazi policies. Today, our own low level civil servants are doing the same, or well on their way.

The rise of the Nazis in Germany and oppression of Jews and others was not spontaneous. It was planned. Likewise, today in the US, though I can't prove it, we certainly seem to be in the midst of a planned manipulation of the population of the US, if not the world. Back then the scapegoat was Jews (and others). Today....maybe it's the so-called "rich"? Maybe it's the boogey-man, terrorism?

We are over taxed, over regulated, and under the ever present fear of our own government bullying citizens through intimidation from local police, TSA agents, the EPA, and on and on. It makes me sick to witness this in my own lifetime.

Re:Fascist States of America (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622409)

In other words, our fascist government just does whatever the hell it wants and no one can do a damn thing about it.

You don't think this is anything new, do you? The federal government has been ignoring court decisions that it doesn't like since at least 1832. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Fascist States of America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622673)

I know, hence the "film at 11" bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_at_11#Popular_culture

"The phrase has since entered popular culture, often describing ordinary or mundane events with a sarcastic implication that these events are somehow earth-shattering, "

Re:Fascist States of America (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622667)

The EPA? When was the last time any individual found themselves being bullied and intimidated by the EPA? Seriously?

The purpose of law is not to protect the public from any plausible threat, but rather to prevent the strong from exploiting or destroying the weak. Thus, for example, laws governing what institutions with billions of dollars do with 350,000 tons of food waste should be much more strict than laws governing what Joe Lunchbox does with his tuna sandwich.

This is why the EPA primarily concerns itself with corporate abuse of the environment, rather than whether you remembered to recycle that mercury watch battery that you threw in the trash last week.

We are not, as a society, overregulated or overtaxed. We are incorrectly regulated and incorrectly taxed. Because those with power and wealth are very good at finding ways to keep it, taxes have a tendency to end up disproportionately getting paid by the people with the least ability to pay them. As a result, nearly all taxes other than personal income tax, property tax, and luxury tax become regressive in time. This is why the government needs to throw away old tax schemes and update them every few years, ensuring that it ceases to be easy for the rich to avoid paying their fair share as they do now.

Case in point, taxes on businesses made sense at the time. The problem was that businesses then realized that their cost of doing business had gone up, so to preserve the revenue reaching their stockholders, they raised the price of goods to accommodate those taxes. This is why taxing business is useless. The way to fix this problem is to do away with business taxes entirely, and replace them by taxing capital gains on stocks as ordinary income. This significantly reduces the businesses' incentive to raise the price of goods to cover the tax burden, which means that the poor don't get gouged as much when they go to the store, and the rich who are leeching off of those businesses are forced to pay their fair share. (The middle class with retirement accounts would pay slightly more, but that would largely be balanced out by having more money to put away for retirement up front.)

Similarly, this removes corporations' incentive to keep money overseas (because the stockholders would now pay taxes on the value regardless).

You could also remove the incentive to do manufacturing overseas by adding import duties equal to the labor cost difference between the producing country and the destination country. This would level the playing field and allow for fair global competition based on the quality of workers, the ability to innovate, and the ability to automate, rather than artificially devaluing the workers themselves.

Drag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622093)

Only governments and regulators are allowed (by misguided courts) to stall. Everyone else has to deal. Before you claim "sovereign immunity", I remind you the CITIZENS are the sovereigns in this country. The "alleged sovereigns" (regulators) in this case are delegations of the legislature, under the sole control of the executive, of the very government, our constitution warned us against!!

JJ

Woe unto those who enforce rulings here (1)

Tanman (90298) | more than 2 years ago | (#40622607)

I wonder if anyone in the judiciary branch enforcing rulings against the TSA ends up unable to fly/etc. They would have pretty much the same recourse as the rest of us.

Change! http://www.conconcon.org/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40622973)

http://www.conconcon.org/

Things will never change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623299)

They wont change because no one has the balls to stand up and rally people for what really needs to be done. People will talk a lot of shit on the internet but when it comes down to it no one will do anything because everyone is a pussy and afraid of losing their mcdonalds meals to eat in their chairs infront of the tv. Personally Id do something but Im not a organizer, never have been. But if the people of this country got together and went to the white house demanding we get our rights back, everyone gets good health care, better paying jobs and so on to improve the quality of the 99% of americans what are they going to do against their entire country? Sure a bunch might show up but soon as threats are made most of them will run and others will be in jail because americans have no backbone anymore.

So my advice is just to forget this garbage and go on with your life. Things suck and its OUR fault for letting it happen because were all weak willed children that are scared of being yelled at by our parents.

Forget about the bad stuff and go back to your game shows and video games because you might complain about this country but you wont do anything about it.

Re:Things will never change. (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624789)

"People will talk a lot of shit on the internet but when it comes down to it no one will do anything because everyone is a pussy"

"Personally Id do something but"

"if the people of this country got together and went to the white house demanding we get our rights back"

"Personally Id do something but"

"americans have no backbone anymore"

"Personally Id do something but"

"its OUR fault for letting it happen"

"Personally Id do something but"

"because were all weak willed children that are scared"

"Personally Id do something but"

"go back to your game shows and video games"

"Personally Id do something but"

"you might complain about this country but you wont do anything about it"

"Personally Id do something but"

STFU! YOU are everything that you piss and moan about, moron.

They will never comply (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#40623579)

This administration has a proven track record of obstructing justice, ignoring court orders and subpoenas, and pretty much doing whatever the hell it wants and ruling by fiat with executive orders.

As far as power-consolidating dictators go, Obama makes Bush look like a rank amateur.

Does this surprise everyone? (-1, Flamebait)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#40623755)

I find it still surprising that people in this country still seem amazed when the current administration ignores the orders of the courts or it's rulings? We used to have this system of checks and balances, but nowadays it seems that if the courts order something of the Obama administration, they ignore it. While I agree that the whole recent contempt vote on Holder was to prove a point, the justice department ignored it and now the Republicans have to go to the courts to seek justice. In that venue Obama and his cronies have a long track record in the past two years of ignoring the courts, essentially thumbing their noses at decisions that they don't agree with.

Here's a few examples:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/22/judge-to-obama-administration-get-moving-on-drilling-permits/ [heritage.org]
http://www.westernjournalism.com/holder-ignores-supreme-court-ruling-steps-up-voter-fraud-efforts/ [westernjournalism.com]
http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3151:obama-ignores-qorder-to-appearq&catid=61:national&Itemid=109 [tulsatoday.com]

Oh and let's not forget this little piece of great writing by Holder to the Fifth Circuit Court. Basically it's a polite fuck you.

http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2012/04/Eric-Holder-response.pdf [abovethelaw.com]

If we are a nation of laws, then we have to obey those laws. This administration is now demonstrating that they will only respect those laws that meet with their agenda. I'm sorry, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or any damn party if you ignore the checks and balances that are framed in the constitution, then we no longer have a democracy, we have a dictatorship. Think about it. Nudeoscan 5000s, your e-mails being read without a warrant by the Feds (refer to previous slashdot article on that) and constant obstruction of requests from congress for records that they should have access to. I'm sorry, I think this country has reverted back to the time of Nixon and he swore he wasn't a crook.

So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623793)

When are we going to start killing these scumbags for not doing what they're told. Now might be a good time.

crusher (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40623983)

great, http://www.shunkycrusher.com
http://www.jawcrusher.hk

Failed servers (1)

VernorVinge (1420843) | more than 2 years ago | (#40624277)

It's interesting that the petition served failed just as this thread was gaining steam. Big Brother is watching, and he's getting pissed.

Count Down to November 2012 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40624807)

The Grim Reaper Waits for the clock to count down.

Then Napolitano and her lap dog Pistol will die along with 100k of the 'Unelected Government of the USA'.

LoL

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>