Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Security Transportation

A Nude Awakening — the TSA and Privacy 728

Posted by Soulskill
from the keep-it-above-the-waist dept.
DIplomatic writes "The Oklahoma Daily has a well-written editorial about the current state of airport security. Though the subject has overly-commented on, this article is well worth the read. Quoting: 'The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant that it doesn't make rational sense to accept the suspension of liberty for the sake of avoiding a statistical anomaly. There's no purpose in security if it debases the very life it intends to protect, yet the forced choice one has to make between privacy and travel does just that. If you want to travel, you have a choice between low-tech fondling or high-tech pornography; the choice, therefore, to relegate your fundamental rights in exchange for a plane ticket. Not only does this paradigm presume that one's right to privacy is variable contingent on the government's discretion and only respected in places that the government doesn't care to look — but it also ignores that the fundamental right to travel has consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court. If we have both the right to privacy and the right to travel, then TSA's newest procedures cannot conceivably be considered legal. The TSA's regulations blatantly compromise the former at the expense of the latter, and as time goes on we will soon forget what it meant to have those rights.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Nude Awakening — the TSA and Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • Some People (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skarecrow77 (1714214) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:12PM (#34465846)

    will give up any freedoms because they are "supposed to" in order to "be safe".

    Other people will argue that speed limits and income tax are a violation of their natural born freedoms and need to be abolished.

    Most people just want a sane middle ground. Too bad the noisy people get all the results.

    • Re:Some People (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hannson (1369413) <hannson@gmail.com> on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:15PM (#34465904)
      I'd rather go down in an awesome fireball of death rather than being groped by the TSA. At least I'd die with some dignity.
      • Re:Some People (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:26PM (#34466096)

        I'd rather go down in an awesome fireball of death rather than expect everyone to be groped by the TSA. At least they'd live with dignity.

      • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:28PM (#34466126)

        Best case though would be the TSA dies groping my awesome, dignified fireballs.

      • Re:Some People (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jayme0227 (1558821) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:30PM (#34466168) Journal

        I think the government should allow each airline to offer, say, 50 flights per day in which you don't have to go through all the security theater. That way people can take a calculated risk on whether they want to be molested, photographed nude, or none of the above.

        • by Obfuscant (592200)
          I think the government should allow each airline to offer, say, 50 flights per day in which you don't have to go through all the security theater. That way people can take a calculated risk on whether they want to be molested, photographed nude, or none of the above.

          The problem with that is that so many of the flights today are overbooked that you would still have no choice in the matter. I.e., the chance of getting a seat on one of the 50 flights would be so miniscule that you would have to take a groped

      • Re:Some People (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nemyst (1383049) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:32PM (#34466208) Homepage
        Chances are you wouldn't come down in a fiery ball, either. The TSA is scanning for people with weapons or bombs, both of which are of little use outside of a direct confrontation with the passengers and crew. Unlike 9/11, people now know that if they don't react they're just about certain to die AND to cause the death of hundreds. Crews are better trained to face such situations. Plane cockpits have been reinforced. All in all, the chances of you falling on some terrorist or terrorist group that manages to get on board without triggering the metal detectors and explosive detectors (ie what was already in place way before those intrusive scans) AND manages to control the entire crew and all passengers or blow up the entire plane is absurdly small. Blowing up the plane would require a lot of explosives or very well-placed charges, both of which are highly unlikely to happen, so most terrorists would confront the people there and nowadays the chances of them succeeding are slight.

        The TSA's latest "security measures" are just a nice way of making money for some companies and it makes them look like they're doing something.
        • Re:Some People (Score:5, Interesting)

          by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:49PM (#34466464)
          You touch on the two most important security enhancements since 9/11:

          1. Reinforced cockpit doors
          2. Passengers no longer reacting passively

          Those 2 things alone will prevent another 9/11 from ever happening again. 9/11 wasn't about bombs it was about controlling aircraft and using them as bombs. Flight #93 is proof of that. When the passengers fought back, the removed the control that the terrorists had and so the terrorists crashed the plane.

          The only thing I'll disagree with you on is this

          weapons or bombs, both of which are of little use outside of a direct confrontation with the passengers and crew

          Bombs are quite useful outside of direct confrontation. If the underwear bomber or shoe bomber had been able to detonate without being interrupted, damage would have been done and we all be getting our colonoscopies for free during our strip searches at the airports. The planes may not have crashed but that wasn't ever the goal of those plans. Just scare us into reacting and they worked perfectly.

          • That's it exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by FatSean (18753) on Monday December 06, 2010 @07:03PM (#34466722) Homepage Journal

            9/11 killed a few thousand people...far less than die every year on our roads. The property damage was signifigant...but less than we've been spending on the TSA and our nation building. Osama knew the American people had an absurd expectation that their government's foreign policy could never come home to roost in that way. Who knew that training killers to stir up civil strife and kill other people backed by our enemy in a third nation would come back to bite us in the ass! Everyone over-reacted after 9/11 and we've been punked like nobody has been punked before...by ourselves.

        • by icebike (68054)

          Unlike 9/11, people now know that if they don't react they're just about certain to die AND to cause the death of hundreds.

          Well said. Every single event used to justify the groping and scanning since 9/11 was thwarted by Joe Passenger.

          And Joe is not required to read anyone the Miranda card, or produce reasonable proof that lighting one's shoes on fire in the window seat warrants a laptop to the head and a chokehold by five overweight middle age guys and a stewardess with a hand full of zip ties.

      • by pitchpipe (708843) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:34PM (#34466264)
        The terrorists have won [imgur.com].
    • Re:Some People (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rwa2 (4391) * on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:24PM (#34466062) Homepage Journal

      I would really like to be more outraged on this topic. But the propects of fondling and pornography are just too titilating to me. Damn prudes :-P

      Then again, I haven't actually flown all that recently. Maybe my opinion will change after I fly cross country with the kids later this month.

      • Re:Some People (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pilgrim23 (716938) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:42PM (#34466366)
        One day long ago, a company, as part of a traveling promotion for their product, had a display of one of the original 13 copies of the Bill of Rights. In 1789, Congress had authorized hand made copies of these to be created for each of the States. This copy was in an inert Nitrogen box, inside a steel case, in a steel display kiosk built inside their semi trailer traveling display. Accompanying this display was some fellows in dark suits, ear pieces, and a distinct bulge in the under arm area. I assumed they were Secret Service. To enter this display it was required that each citizen must pass through a metal detector. I happen to always wear Redwing Boots. Redwings are very well built steel toe boots. Of course the alarm went off and I had to remove my shoes to enter the structure. I should mention this was in the early 1980s long before Homeland Scrutiny and the need to strip search 80 year old Irish Nuns at the airport to insure they are not Arab anarchists in disguise.. I dutifully, and meekly removed my boots so I could enter the display. To this day, I recall standing in my socks, looking down at the original document that stated: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It made me feel warm...right down to my (cold) toes....
      • Re:Some People (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fwice (841569) on Monday December 06, 2010 @07:10PM (#34466818)

        I would really like to be more outraged on this topic. But the propects of fondling and pornography are just too titilating to me. Damn prudes :-P

        I am a straight, sexually-active male, with no image issues -- completely comfortable with my body, my sexuality, and the size of my penis. I don't have any sexual hang-ups, enjoy pornography [especially watching with a partner!], and don't have any "compensation" issues.

        But getting my body and penis felt up because I choose to exercise my right [yes, right -- see Shapiro vs. Thompson] to interstate travel, or even intrastate travel for California flights, because I decline the 'privilege' of stepping through a Rapiscan? My body is my business -- and those who I let touch it my business. I have sex on my terms. Similar to the "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent" approach, no one can touch my body without my consent.

        Making a joke about people being "prudes" because they don't want to have some random person they have not chosen for a sexual relationship to get intimate with their body is completely undermining the issue. This is a serious matter. If somebody gets touched without consent, it is rape. And, despite what prison-jokes ["he'll get his in jail"] or victim-blaming ["she was asking for it"] jokes you ascribe to, this is a horrible ordeal -- especially for those who have been abused/traumatized and may incur flashbacks as a result of this.

        I opted out twice [on business travel, not personal travel where I could have driven] on the week of Thanksgiving [not on opt-out day], and while my 'pat-downers' were extremely friendly about the whole ordeal, it's still something I'd not want to repeat. Especially the second time, when I had to wait thirty minutes for someone to come over and pat me down -- as many of the male staff would get asked and say they did not want to touch anyone -- while my carry-ons sat barely in my vision, and not under close security eye 30 feet away. While I was waiting to be screened, and trying to make sure no one lifted any of my possessions, the female TSA "officer" near me kept making jokes about "opt-out day". When I eventually got screened and scrutinized, I had to run to the gate to catch my flight. A full 70 minutes after getting in the security line.

        Then again, I haven't actually flown all that recently. Maybe my opinion will change after I fly cross country with the kids later this month.

        Yeah, let's see how you feel when some person you don't know gets to second base with your children. Doing a full body rub, going up their legs to the groin until the "officer" feels "resistance" -- by their definition. Having a full press done on their chest, covering the entire surface. Having their backsides rubbed [with the back of the "officer's" hands, of course]. If some random man or woman did this to your kids on the street, you'd kick the crap out of them and call the cops. Here, it's for our "safety".

        Let's not even touch the name on these things -- rapiscan -- I dunno, does that root sound similar to rape? Not doing any conditioning or anything...

  • by houghi (78078) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:13PM (#34465872)

    Hopefully this TSA stuff that is now coming into the public news is enough for people to start wondering about privacy and act on it in the USofA.

    • Does anyone else think WikiLeaks might have inadvertently helped the TSA? Seriously. A couple weeks ago there were many TSA stories online and I also said [slashdot.org] that things might improve since there are stories getting to national headlines. But for the past week, it seems WikiLeaks has been the number one thing in the news, even overshadowing the aftermath of North Korea shelling the South, as well as the huge fires in Israel. Sadly, attention being drawn to something else is precisely what the TSA needs.
      • Does anyone else think WikiLeaks might have inadvertently helped the TSA?... attention being drawn to something else is precisely what the TSA needs.

        Outside of slashdot, the responses to the porno scanners or gate rape that I was hearing were all sheeple responses of "well, I guess we have to weigh liberty VS safety" with no further analysis. That was about all I was getting from the public. I'm reminded of the quote, apparently by Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." News stories about how foolish these procedures are weren't going to motiv

    • by blair1q (305137) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:27PM (#34466098) Journal

      It's the wrong part of the election cycle for that sort of hope.

      Two months ago this would have made for interesting politics.

      Now, lame-duck congress, weakened party of the President, and 22 months until the next election, it'll be old news and nobody will give a damn before anything engages people in their choices.

  • by pscottdv (676889) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:13PM (#34465876)
    and has always been about making people feel secure.
    • by Nadaka (224565)

      If the goal was to make people feel secure, then fondling them and ogling them through their cloths with x-rays was a really bad decision. In puritan America, with all the hangups that people have about their bodies, they couldn't have made a worse decision.

    • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:22PM (#34466024)

      and has always been about making people feel secure.

      I disagree. I think it's all part of the "power grab" that "LE" has been conducting full-tilt since "9/11". It can be seen at *every* level from local to federal. A great example is the manipulated hysteria that justifies even the smallest Police Departments in Podunk Oregon or wherever spending many 1000$ on bomb robots. We saw it last week in Denver where the cops blew up a 10 inch tall toy, because - you know - it could have been a bomb. Think of the children, and when did you stop beating your wife? You must *want* the terrorist to win.... Blaw, blaw, blaw...

    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:22PM (#34466032) Journal
      and has always been about exploiting irrational emotions.

      'The risk of a terrorist attack is so infinitesimal and its impact so relatively insignificant that it doesn't make rational sense to accept the suspension of liberty for the sake of avoiding a statistical anomaly.

      Your fancy statistics and rational thought got no place in American politics and national policy. Not these days anyway. Right now Glenn Beck [washingtonpost.com] and Sarah Palin [washingtonpost.com] are more popular than Stephen Hawking and James Watson. Good luck preaching about statistics to the populace that is justifying these privacy violations with fear!

    • by Svartalf (2997)

      If it were about that, then they failed from the outset.

      It's never really been about making people feel secure. It's about control and making people be led to believe that the ones in control are "doing something" about the problem of "terrorism".

  • isn't it special (Score:5, Insightful)

    by larry bagina (561269) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:15PM (#34465902) Journal

    In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, John Pistole said they can't profile because it might not be Constitutional. As opposed to all the other things they're doing which might not be constitutional.

    Senator Chuck Schumer proposed a bill to make it illegal to redistribute porno-vision image. Wrong problem, wrong answer. How about: it is illegal and unconstitutional to generate porno-vision images or perform an enhanced patdown without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

  • Money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jimpop (27817) * on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:15PM (#34465908) Homepage Journal

    It's not about anything other than money. Follow the money. EOM

    • Re:Money (Score:4, Informative)

      by hedwards (940851) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:31PM (#34466182)
      Wrong, it's about reminding the population that terrorists are out there so that politicians running on a strong military platform don't lose their elections.

      The money to the companies is mostly just a sweetener.
      • He's correct and so are you (except about him being wrong). Michael Chertoff, ex Secretary of Homeland Security, ran a consultation group, Chertoff Group. Rapiscan Systems was a client at the time he was pushing for scanners while he was the current Secretary of Homeland Security.

  • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:16PM (#34465922)
    Stoping a terrorist with a bomb at a crowded TSA security checkpoint is too late.
    • by blair1q (305137) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:25PM (#34466070) Journal

      Inasmuchas everything has to be built somewhere, saying things are pork is not sufficient to prove that's the only reason they're being done.

    • by Lundse (1036754) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:35PM (#34466284)

      Please mod up insightful (since we have no "succint")!

      Let's take this just a bit further, btw:

      Say a terrorist for some reason decides to take over a plane with a bomb, either for traditions sake, or because he is misinformed.
      If he manages to get on the plane, his death toll will be rather low - the chance of killing more people than are at the plane are miniscule.
      If he is discovered, he can detonate where he is and kill more people.
      So, the TSA procedures are far more likely to help the terrorist kill more people.

    • by fyngyrz (762201)

      Stoping(sic) a terrorist with a bomb at a crowded TSA security checkpoint is too late.

      Well, it would be if the goal was actually to save the people. But if the goal is to save the aircraft, it's not. Now, consider all the things the government has not spent money on to save people: Highway deaths, smoking, fast food, avoiding foreign wars... now, what do you think it is they are most likely trying to protect here: You? Or the airline?

  • by scharkalvin (72228) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:18PM (#34465956) Homepage

    Benjamin Franklin said it best, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

  • by russotto (537200) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:20PM (#34465984) Journal

    It used to be that there were three different tests for determining whether some government action that, on the face of it, appeared to violate one's rights, was nevertheless permissable. There was the "rational basis" test, which allowed the government to perform the rights violation if it could show there was some rational basis for doing so. There was the "strict scrutiny" test which insisted the government have some compelling interest in doing whatever the law was doing, and that there be no better way to do it. This was applied to certain rights considered particularly fundamental, like freedom of speech, religion, and the press. And there was the "heightened scrutiny" test somewhere in between, which tended to show up in equal protection cases.

    Now we have the "irrational basis" test, replacing all three, which says that if the government can come up with any scenario where allowing their violation might be good, or any scenario where protecting the right implicated might cause harm, no matter how implausible and farfetched, the government's action is allowed.

    Personally I find strict scrutiny to be insufficiently strict, and prefer the "rights are rights" test, but I'm one of those wild-eyed radicals.

  • by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:23PM (#34466036) Homepage

    Wil Shipley posted a (ficticious) interview [wilshipley.com] with the TSA that I think covers the problem perfectly.

    There was also a post on Reddit today that pointed out that the TSA would save more lives (statistically) if all they did was listen to people's hearts, check their blood pressure, and refer them to a doctor if it was outside the normal range.

  • by jfengel (409917) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:23PM (#34466052) Homepage Journal

    People seem to have picked an odd point at which to become suddenly outraged. This has been going on for years, and I've been hearing the "trade essential liberty" quote to the point that it's tattooed on my retinas.

    This one seems to have provoked especial outrage, and I can't help but see it as politically driven. Your average civil-liberties-minded Slashdotter has been roughly consistent, but I feel as if for much of the population it was different when The Last Guy was in charge. Now that The Other Guy is in charge, gosh, those other civil liberties violations were Necessary to the Security of a Free State, but this one's too much.

    Or maybe it's just the prurience of it all: oooooh... nekkid pictures and groping. Sounds like headline news to me.

    I just don't feel like we've suddenly crossed some line, where the other rights we gave up weren't Fundamental, but these are. Americans threw a hissy fit when the Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber and the Toner Cartridge Bomber managed to almost cause serious harm, but you've got two choices: either accept the occasional death-by-bombing, or the occasional massive personal intrusion. (There's also the Israeli option of spending ten times as much on security and standing in line while they quiz everybody, another unpopular stance.)

    My point being... if all you've got to offer me is "I hate this", well, yeah, I knew that. When you've got an option that doesn't also generate "I hate this" from practically everybody, you've got News. Until then I feel like this story has been about biting dogs for way longer than is of any interest.

    • by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:40PM (#34466340) Homepage Journal

      You are incorrect. I didn't like it before but it was primarily a nuisance. Now they've instituted new policies that violate my mores. You can argue all day that I'm incorrect for feeling the way I do (it's already been done above) but the bottom line is that I experience these things on a visceral level. I'll take my shoes off, put my laptop in it's own bin, fit all my gel and toothpaste in a little bag, etc. It's stupid and annoying but I can deal.

      When I'm told my choices are to either be photographed naked or be felt up, I start losing the ability to be detached and unemotional. When it's my kids that are facing this choice then I'm really upset. It's the culture I grew up in that these things are completely wrong. I've spent time explaining to my children that there are places where no one is to ever touch them, that if they do they are to tell me immediately. Now I'm supposed to let some flunky with TSA do it to me right in front of them, and to them as soon as they turn 12.

      Feel free to mock my upbringing all day, I can't go back in time and grow up in a completely different culture.

      And if anyone could show that any of it makes sense or is effective - I'd take a stab at trying to change the way I think about it. But since the whole things is a bad joke, I'll stick with trying to change the policy rather than myself.

      So is it all because there's a democrat in the Whitehouse? No - that's ridiculous. I voted for that man. I voted for Napalitano when she ran for Governor of AZ. She did a good job. Is it "prurience"? If you want to put it that way but I'm not sure why that's something that should be thrown aside just because you have a different set of values.

  • Chance of cancer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gurps_npc (621217) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:33PM (#34466250) Homepage
    The machines they use are pretty safe. Only a 1 in 30 million chance of cancer.

    Of course, the odds of getting killed by a terrorist are less than one in 60 million.

    The TSA claim their searches are 'reasonable'. Then why do they say that congressman don't have to go through it? If it reasonable, then everyone should have to do it.

    They consistently say things like "You give up your rights when you buy the ticket."

    No. Our rights do NOT go away. The law is clear - the rights remain. The definition of reasonable is what changes. And no reasonable parent man would allow their 14 year old girl pictured nude or fondled. Similarly, no reasonable person would allow the searches the TSA has demanded. This includes the basic stuff and the more viable junk like harassing women for traveling with breast milk, or Armed US soldiers traveling with rifles (OK - let them go) and nail clippers (NO! YOU CAN'T HAVE IT. GIVE IT HERE.), stealing watches, cash from purses, etc..

    The TSA has NEVER, not ONCE caught an actual terrorist planning on committing a hijacking that they were not previously given the name. Not once has any metal detector or pat down discovered a terrorist that we were not already looking for.

    • by fyngyrz (762201) on Monday December 06, 2010 @07:30PM (#34467142) Homepage Journal

      The definition of reasonable is what changes

      No. The definition of reasonable is constitutionally explicit: ...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Were you presented with a warrant? Did they show probable cause to believe you were carrying something illicit? Someone swore or stood witness to that? There was a description of what they thought you were carrying?

      That's what "reasonable" means. It isn't some vague, variable hand-waving thing the government gets to define one way on Tuesday and another in Hoboken.

  • by tekrat (242117) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:38PM (#34466316) Homepage Journal

    I'm astounded that these two issues are seperated, and yet, no one looks beyond the surface to see what it's REALLY about... Privacy.

    I'm sure the same people calling for Assange to be hanged are the same people that also say "if you've got nothing to hide..." about going through an airport scanner. They want to have that nice cozy feeling that the nanny state is protecting *them*.

    So, they don't want to hear about Wikileaks, and they want to be seen naked at the airport *if* they think that'll make them sleep soundly at night.

    This is about privacy. And if the average citizen can't expect any at the airport, why the hell should the government think it deserves *any* privacy? When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you.

    So Wikileaks and Airport scanners. Two great tastes that taste great together! Too bad the government doesn't get the irony of being so upset about Assange while they strip away our rights. Too bad the media doesn't get it either. These two events are happening at the same time and both are about an expectation of privacy.

    Maybe if the government got rid of the scanners, Wikileaks would calm down.

  • Follow the funding (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AHuxley (892839) on Monday December 06, 2010 @07:01PM (#34466696) Homepage Journal
    it doesn't make rational sense to accept the suspension of liberty for the sake of avoiding a statistical anomaly.
    A massive new agency, funding, private interests and new equipment, contracts to keep it all running and ongoing upgrades.
    A new closed system with few new players. Make an issue about it as a contractor and http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3454/show [opencongress.org] Section 815 will see you blacklisted in other DoD contracts.
    A few well connected people are going to get very rich, stay rich and move into other areas.
  • Airline Security (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AVryhof (142320) <avryhof AT gawab DOT com> on Monday December 06, 2010 @07:05PM (#34466754) Homepage

    In my opinion, I think you should be permitted to carry anything you can legally carry in any public place on an airplane.

    Also, the TSA should become an educational service for airline employees. Train all airline staff how to defend the plane, give them the ability to arrest and detain unruly passengers. Lock the cockpit, make it bullet proof,and arm the pilots.

    Once you do that, any terrorist would be INSANE to try anything on a plane. You'll have passengers who have pocket knives, multi-tools, etc on them. Airline staff that can actually do something, and armed pilots in a protected location who can all stop the "bad guys".

    Empower the passengers and crew, because for everyone who won't do anything, there that many who would do something as simple as stick out a foot, slide out their carry on bag or smack 'em with their Macbook to thwart it.

  • by JustNiz (692889) on Monday December 06, 2010 @07:05PM (#34466760)

    It seems to me that by perpetuating this ridiculous paranoia of terrorist attack, and the subsequent removal of our rights, freedoms and privacy, our own governments continue to reward the terrorists with much greater victories than they could ever possibly achieve on their own.
     

    • by tekrat (242117)

      Yes, that was Bin Laden's plan all along. Right now, in a cave someplace is a banner that reads "Mission Accomplished". He might even be wearing Bush's flight suit too.

Practical people would be more practical if they would take a little more time for dreaming. -- J. P. McEvoy

Working...