Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Security

Stupid Censorship, Stupid Security 320

Posted by jamie from the every-day-is-Jefferson-day dept.
The 2003 Jefferson Muzzle "winners" are out. This year's crop starts with John Ashcroft and the U.S. Congress, and works its way down through the school board that voted to put Harry Potter on the restricted shelf. Innovation in censorship deserves recognition, read and enjoy. And in other stupid news, the winners of the Stupid Security Competition have been announced. I like that I'm being protected from tea. It makes me feel safe.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stupid Censorship, Stupid Security More

Stupid Censorship, Stupid Security

Comments Filter:

  • A good example from years ago (Score:3, Funny)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @12:58PM (#5722123) Homepage Journal
    was a porn filter in the library of the university of Essex. But they did it bad and the university homepage become filtered

    • Reminds me of when... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:14PM (#5722196)
      ...a certain online service [aol.com] implemented filters in its user registration process. People with last names like Petit or Snodgrass, and people who lived in cities with names like Scunthorpe or Middlesex, were prohibited from signing up for the service! The filters are implemented elsewhere too, one of AOL's remote employees couldn't enter his last name, Kuntz [aolwatch.org], into his online profile. Way to lose revenue.
      • A high school I taught at also has very stupid censoring software. It would censor language out from emails, but it just looked for combinations of letter without taking into account things like spaces or punctuation. so things like "and as such..." would turn up in out going emails as "and uch" because "as" and "s" looke dlike "ass" to the program even though there was a space between the two s's.
    • Reminds me of when the head of department is determined to go on a search-and-delete operation for anything that might be potentially offensive. The first students hear about this is when they log in and read the message of the day. The first reaction: "Some ******'s gone and deleted my thesis on sexually explicit lyrics in rap music!".

      • True story from 2001 (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13, 2003 @02:20PM (#5722501)
        A.C. for obvious reasons.

        In 2001 I was interning as a system/network administrator for a publishing house (hint: textbooks). It was (alas) a mostly NT shop for the typists, editors, etc. "grunt workers." The graphics and design teams were mostly using Macs. We had an NT box with 5 30 gig drives serving as a file server.

        One of the C-level pointy hairs must have logged into the file server one day and realized that most of the space was used up. He sent a memo to our department (Technical Operations) saying how he found a large number of TIF, EPS, and PSD files on the drives taking up "inordinate amounts" of space and that they need to be deleted immediately. I kid you not. Dunno whether he thought they were horrific pirate music files or what, but they were taking up space so by god they needed to go.

        My manager printed out a copy of the memo, handed it to me, smiling, and said "write a batch file to do what he wants." I did. Ten minutes later, the fileserver had about 80 gigs more storage space.

        All of us on the floor laughed our asses off most of the day.

        The night shift spent most of their time restoring backups (fortunately most of the artsy folks had their own backups as well) cursing us for carring out the order.

        The C-level never contacted TechOps again.

  • Most Annoyingly Stupid Award (Score:4, Funny)

    by robbyjo ( 315601 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:00PM (#5722132) Homepage

    Most Annoyingly Stupid Award [privacyinternational.org]

    Wrong... It should be awarded to this guy [slashdot.org], when explaining the security in Iraq.

    </joke>

  • censoring (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Interfacer ( 560564 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:01PM (#5722136)
    the problem with censoring data is that - if you aim to remove access to offending data - there is no end to it. there will always be people who get offended at anything.

    for example the harry potter book burning event was just plain stupid. it is just a kids story (good though) and if your belief system is so fragile that you have to protect it by removing access to all data that you find not suitable, you have a problem.

    in my experience if people prevent other people asking questions, than that means that that you are not too sure about your answers to those questions.

    int.
    • [Congress for a]llowing $8,000 in tax dollars to be spent on drapes to conceal two semi-nude statues that often appeared behind the attorney general during press conferences in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice. Ironically, the two statues represent "The Spirit of Justice" and "The Majesty of Law." They are scared to death of the naked truth. Here/a. is a mirror in the event that the original site goes down. [osnippets.org]
      • Couldn't find a burkha in her size.

      • well, in our government's defense (this time), those curtains were bought to hide the breasts simply to stop the press from acting like 5th graders trying to get politicians into a shot with the breast. if you see the actual setting, the statue would hardly be seen from a normal point of view, but photographers would go out of their way to include them in a shot.

        • Re:They just want to hide nudity. (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          photographers would go out of their way to include them in a shot.

          Only because the polititians were tits to begin with.

        • Re:They just want to hide nudity. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sg3000 ( 87992 ) <(sg_public) (at) (mac.com)> on Sunday April 13, 2003 @05:33PM (#5723413)
          > those curtains were bought to hide the breasts
          > simply to stop the press from acting like 5th
          > graders trying to get politicians into a shot
          > with the breast. if you see the actual setting,
          > the statue would hardly be seen from a normal
          > point of view, but photographers would go out of
          > their way to include them in a shot.

          I've seen this written a couple of times on Slashdot. Do you have any proof of this?

          It doesn't make sense to me, because I can't imagine an editor of a major newsagency allowing hundreds of photos to be shown with the same pair of statue's breasts in them. So why would professional photographers go out of their way to immaturely compose their pictures that won't get printed anyway. I mean, it's not like the breasts improve the photo's newsworthyness.

          I guess you could use the same justification to censor the war photos: "We got rid of this whole free speech thing because people started acting like a bunch of fifth graders, you know showing pictures of injured civilians [dailykos.com] and stuff."

    • Re:censoring (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Motherfucking Shit ( 636021 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:27PM (#5722252) Journal
      the problem with censoring data is that - if you aim to remove access to offending data - there is no end to it. there will always be people who get offended at anything.
      Your first sentence is also true in another way; namely, there is no end to the censored information even after the act of censoring.

      Case in point, the Muzzle awarded to the high school for censoring a story out of the school paper. The local newspaper ran the content instead, and it probably picked up a considerably larger audience there. The distribution of most high school newspapers is limited to the students of that school who bother to grab a copy, and perhaps their parents. But by trying to censor the story, the principal wound up achieving the opposite: the "censored" material was seen by more people than would have seen it had it remained uncensored in the first place.

      We truly have reached a point in the history of human communications where once something is written down or typed in, it's nearly impossible for anyone - even its author - to "unpublish" it. Once the cat's out of the bag, there's no putting it back. The internet makes permanence of speech a guarantee, so long as there are people interested in that speech. DeCSS is perhaps the best example, but there are thousands more.

      This is a powerful thing, folks. Remember to use it whenever you can.

  • obligatory Simpsons quote (Score:4, Funny)

    by Shilaeli ( 662153 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:01PM (#5722137)
    Ned: And Harry Potter... and all his wizard friends... went STRAIGHT to hell for practicing witchcraft!

    Todd: Yay!

  • Censorship as a concept has no purpose (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ishkibble ( 581826 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:02PM (#5722141)
    One of my favorite saying is "Information is not bad, it is the is the holding of information that is bad". The idea that you are protecting a child from harm it unfounded. The only reason Censorship is around is cuz of Right Wing, conservatives are afraid of change. God forbid a child read a book about a kid who can make things float. Censorship is really about control, someone had decided that an idea should not be shared with other people and thus they take it upon them selves to control that idea. An idea could be anything, a book, a word, a movie, etc,. I am a firm believer that Censorship in any form is bad and hinders creativity. The DMCA is one of the biggest acts of Censorship I've ever seen. "NOPE! This here DMCA cays you can't publish that report about anti-copy protection!"
    common guys, step out of the box for a sec and look at with relevance Censorship has. and i'll tell you, it has none
    • All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions...

      Didn't say it was it was a very good purpose... :) The rest of the quote reads: ...All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships. -George Bernard Shaw

      Amen.

      On a similar note, I'd like to cite the Bill of No Rights [locksley.com], Article II:

      You do not have the right to nev
      • Your link points to a pretty sickening document. Not only sickening but kind of delusional too.

        "Americans are the most charitable people to be found"? Huh? since when. If americans were so generous there would be hunger and poverty in the US.

        "You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you."

        Only in america is this kind of lawlessness and vigilanteeism revered.

        "You do not hav
        • "Americans are the most charitable people to be found"? Huh? since when. If americans were so generous there would be hunger and poverty in the US.

          They are indeed. Partly because of a tax system which rewards and encourages donations, partly because they have so much more to give than most other countries (higher GDP/capita + lower taxes -> more money to spend on everything, including charity). As for hunger - there are plenty of charities active to feed the homeless, as well as those in other countrie

    • Re:Censorship as a concept has no purpose (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Motherfucking Shit ( 636021 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @02:33PM (#5722567) Journal
      God forbid a child read a book about a kid who can make things float.
      Ironic, too, when you consider that most of the parents causing a stir about Harry Potter are making their kids read a book about a guy who can walk on water [bible.org]. Sometimes I wonder who's really corrupting the minds of our children.

  • Interesting to note... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by friedegg ( 96310 ) <bryan@NoSPAM.wrestlingdb.com> on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:03PM (#5722146) Homepage
    That in 2002, the top was:
    The United States Department of Defense and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

    "Journalists have been denied access to American troops in the field in Afghanistan to a greater degree than in any previous war involving U.S. military forces."
    - Neil Hickey, in "Access Denied," Columbia Journalism Review, January-February, 2002
    Amazing how much difference a year and a different battlefield can make. Now there are actual embedded reporters on (or near) the front lines.

    • Re:Interesting to note... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by davebarz ( 546161 ) <david@@@barzelay...net> on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:26PM (#5722245) Homepage
      I hope you're being sarcastic. Embedded journalism is designed specifically to limit what journalists can see and record to happy, ra-ra images like guns blazing in front of American flags. Embedded journalism is a means of direct control over what journalists see. Journalists aren't where the bombs drop, they aren't in the combat situations, they are only way back in the rear of the war where the big guns fire away at faceless targets. How anyone can feel like this is a good and open practice is beyond me.
      • Embedded journalists were present during firefights and other combat situations, as you might know if you'd actually paid attention to any.
        • How many dead bodies did you see? How many wounded children did you see?

          You saw the sanitized war which is exactly what the DOD wanted you to see.

          Americans like to pretend their bombs don't actually kill people. They repeatedly show images of a few hundred people celebrating the toppling of a statue and pretend that the tens of thousands of other Iraqis who gave up their lives in an overwhelmingly lopsided fight against the invation of the US troops.

          Of course you are not even allowed to know how many peo

          • Re:Interesting to note... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by sg3000 ( 87992 ) <(sg_public) (at) (mac.com)> on Sunday April 13, 2003 @05:45PM (#5723482)
            > You saw the sanitized war which is exactly what
            > the DOD wanted you to see.

            This is a good point. Salon [salon.com] recently had an interesting article that featured an interesting observation from Dennis Dunleavy, a professor of photojournalism at San Jose State University in California on the media's coverage of the war.

            He said that there are basically 3 "angles" for the news stories and photos:

            1. Technology: "It's our power against the rest of the world and these images reflect that. Tanks, soldiers, shots from aircraft carriers, night-vision pictures. That's all about technology."

            2. Victims: "But not casualties. It's images of refugees, displaced people squatting on the ground while soldiers stand above them. The dominant interest is the coalition troops against a background of helping the homeless or disenfranchised."

            3. Soldiers: "Lots of clear pictures of soldiers giving directions, on the move. They're technically beautiful photographs and amazingly well shot for being in a war zone."

            So from the American press's standpoint, this is a war about America's soldiers, not really the war itself. Contrast this with the view that other countries, particularly in the Arab world, which are seeing a more complete picture: dead and injured civilians, bombed cities, dead soldiers, as well as the other stuff we see.

            America is seeing a sanitized view of the war, which is part of the reason it feels so remote from our daily lives.
  • It is interesting how many educational institutions get the award. Maybe they will finally learn something.

  • Gunpowder tea.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:06PM (#5722161) Journal

    ...is actually very good, espesially with a teaspoon of honey.

    Having read thru a lot of the article, I must say that there is one thing that strikes me; the 'security measures' seems to have been dreamt up by someone in an office, written down by someone who's mind is on other things, and implied by people without the faintest idea of what the first person really meant.

    • The third item was a dual quarter pound cellophane wrapped cardboard package of loose leaf Chinese tea. Unfortunately, it was of a well known variety known as Gunpowder Tea, and had this printed on the packaging.

      yahoo [yahoo.com]

      Obviously this was of such importance, that, despite already forcing the passenger to check his hand bag as hold luggage, it was decided that the tea was allowed, but that the evil word "Gunpowder" was not.

      Consequently the security staff then rummaged around (thereby delaying me and the re

      • >How much more stupid can it get?

        There's probably a floor. Some point where it stops being unthinkable for a passenger to say "No thanks. It's not worth putting up with this crap just to travel. Refund my ticket please." People won't do that because the inconvenience of the security checkpoints does not yet exceed the inconvenience to forego the travel. The few who would disagree with that, won't exactly amount to a general bankruptcy of the travel industry (or a rebellion at the ballot boxes, or an

  • Harry Potter on the restricted shelf ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theefer ( 467185 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:07PM (#5722166) Homepage
    Geez, then where do they put books like American Psycho (Bret Easton Ellis) ? On the secret underground cellar police-protected shelf ? In the porn section ?

  • Ashcroft was just making a point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:07PM (#5722169) Homepage Journal
    from the Ashcroft article:
    "Allowing $8,000 in tax dollars to be spent on drapes to conceal two semi-nude statues that often appeared behind the attorney general during press conferences in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice. Ironically, the two statues represent "The Spirit of Justice" and "The Majesty of Law."

    Ironic indeed, in fact most telling.
    Ashcroft in his post 9/11 reign of the DOJ has done more to hide the doings of the DOJ and execution of it's commandments from the public than any other Attorney General in our nations history.

    Being that he is the mind behind "secret search warrants", "secret evidence" and "secret imprisonment", it is quite fitting that he display this by making the representitive figures of his office "secret" as well.

  • The Censor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Skjellifetti ( 561341 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:09PM (#5722173) Journal

    The Censor sits
    Somewhere between
    The scenes to be seen
    And the television sets
    With his scissor purpose poised
    Watching the human stuff
    That will sizzle through
    The magic wires
    And light up
    Like welding shops
    The ho-hum rooms of America
    And with a kindergarten
    Arts and crafts concept
    Of moral responsibility
    Snips out
    The rough talk
    The unpopular opinion
    Or anything with teeth
    And renders
    A pattern of ideas
    Full of holes
    A doily
    For your mind

    Mason Williams [masonwilliams-online.com]
    The Mason Williams Reading Matter, Doubleday & Company, New York, 1964
  • In the few articles I have read I did not see any instance in which the production of works if art was subject to prior restraint.

    Do the rest of us a favor who do not see an FBI agent around every corner, stop calling every administrative attempt to restrict a display of objectional art to children censorship.

    Whether this organization agrees with it or not parents and citizens have a right to restict objectional art from being displayed using publicly funded means, every bit as much as the artists have

    • Re:Where's the censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DietHacker ( 661193 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:20PM (#5722226) Homepage
      Do the rest of us a favor who do not see an FBI agent around every corner, stop calling every administrative attempt to restrict a display of objectional art to children censorship.

      Definition of censor [reference.com]. The FBI is hardly needed to meet the definition. Also, if that "administrative attempt" is at a public school where children are - by law - required to spend about 1/4 to 1/2 their waking time (during the school year) then they deserve every constitutional protection. Yes, yes, private schools exist. In practice, only so many people can afford that option. Those required to pay for and utilize the public school system have every right to oppose any "administrative attempt".
    • Or are you thinking at all? What the heck do you think censorship is except filtering? Jazus keerist, when the public institution makes the decision on what can be seen and what can't, that is censorship.

      What looney bin do you pull your definitions from?

    • Re:Where's the censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:31PM (#5722272)

      Whether this organization agrees with it or not parents and citizens have a right to restict objectional art from being displayed using publicly funded means, every bit as much as the artists have in producing then getting publishers to distribute and/or display their garbage.

      No, that's exactly what censorship is .. you DON'T have the right to restrict things you object to. And you DO have the right to produce and put out "garbage".

      If people have a "right" to not be offended, then how can you also claim a right of free speech?

    • What if i'm a parent in Alabama in the 50's? What if i find the idea of integration objectionable? What if i find the idea of queer mariage objectionable? What if i see all works that do not exist to exhibit the glory of God objectionable?

      I guess i have a right to make sure none of these things exist in the public sphere. It's not censorship, it's protecting my children.
    • stop calling every administrative attempt to restrict a display of objectional art to children censorship.

      One entry found for censor [webster.com].

      Main Entry: 2censor
      Function: transitive verb
      Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
      Date: 1882
      : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

      Main Entry: censorship
      1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censor

  • laws of censorship (Score:5, Funny)

    by soundF*!k ( 655296 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:11PM (#5722187)
    Is there some kind of a Moore's law for Censorship? Something like "For every disgusting act of censorship, in 12 to 18 months there will be one twice as disgusting?"

    some other thoughts:
    People who are easily offended deserve to be... a lot!

    The real war against liberty for all.
    • That will be more like "every N months, security measures/censorship will double", and the limitation will be public opinion. Once most people sees government as plain evil or plain dumb (you know, never attribute to malice what can be explained by idiocy), trouble will start to happens, and the trend could go back (well, at least I hope so).

  • Question (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pave Low ( 566880 )

    Allowing $8,000 in tax dollars to be spent on drapes to conceal two semi-nude statues that often appeared behind the attorney general during press conferences in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice. Ironically, the two statues represent "The Spirit of Justice" and "The Majesty of Law."

    Can someone explain how this example constitutes censorship? From what I read, this incident was completely blown out of proportion. It wasn't because he wanted to cover up the statues, it was to provide a better ba

    • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zephc ( 225327 )
      what better backdrop could one have than that of Justice and (a just) Law?

      To borrow from the Simpsons, "Mr. Ashcroft, could you at least not stand besides The Spirit of Justice when you say that?"
      • I have no knowledge of the incident, but I believe the parent poster was trying to say that the backdrop provided better contrast. To get a good TV image you need to mess a lot with lighting, backdrops, makeup, and so forth. It could be that light reflecting off the statues was washing out the image.

    • From what I read, this incident was completely blown out of proportion. It wasn't because he wanted to cover up the statues, it was to provide a better backdrop for the cameras.

      My memory must be severely faulty then, because I recall having the distinct impression that he wanted those statues covered specifically because he didn't like appearing in front of a statue with bare breasts. He wanted a backdrop that didn't offend his religious sensibilities. As someone else has already stated, if it bothered h

      • Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)

        by po8 ( 187055 )

        In fact, it apparently was long a standard source of fun for photojournalists to try to get the bare breasts into the picture, often lowering the camera angle substantially to do so. The practice dates at least to Ed Meese's prounouncements on porn during the Reagan Administration. Apparently Ashcroft is a bit thin-skinned about this sort of thing.

  • Quote from a simpson's comic (Score:4, Funny)

    by SlashdotMakesMeKool ( 610077 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:17PM (#5722209) Homepage
    Rev. Lovejoy: I've got to go and burn some Harry Potter books before children discover the joy of reading.

  • Stupid people or stupid regulations? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:30PM (#5722267) Homepage Journal
    Some of the nominations there are about security people that are plain dumb, not about stupid security laws and regulations, like don't let ice cream, water, tea etc to pass instead of cofee or beer, or consider safe glass instead of screwdrivers.

    Is ironic that most of the measures assumed that the terrorist are dumb and use always the same method or container for what they will do, not changing a bit their habits (puting bombs in backpacks instead of big, uncontrolled bags?) showing that the real dumbs are in the controlling points, and that the more effective measure of terrorism is letting the same dumb people to do his job, with that is enough.

    • Re:Stupid people or stupid regulations? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mononoke ( 88668 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:51PM (#5722368) Homepage Journal
      Is ironic that most of the measures assumed that the terrorist are dumb and use always the same method or container for what they will do, not changing a bit their habits (puting bombs in backpacks instead of big, uncontrolled bags?)
      This brings up an interesting point about the 9/11 hijackers that gets glossed over and hidden behind the fear of box openers. From an article about the heros of flight 93:
      At least five passengers and flight attendants described the hijackers in their calls in similar terms: three men, wearing red bandannas, one with some sort of box strapped around his waist that he claimed was a bomb. One passenger reported that two of the hijackers were in the cockpit and a third guarded passengers in first class from behind a curtain.
      Yes, they hijacked the place with an empty box! Funny, but I haven't seen any new rules about the possession of empty boxes aboard airplanes. These hijackers social-engineered their way into the cockpit, then got the boxcutters out. Even an armed pilot is going to be defenseless against a hijacker holding a 'bomb.'

      Me? If I can't drive there, I don't go.

      • Yes, they hijacked the place with an empty box!

        Planes have been hijacked using teddy bears (claiming that they were bombs). Of course these go through the checkpoints and the security personnel at the checkpoints know it is not a bomb but they are not on the plane, are they?

        Point is-- Nothing and I mean nothing is going to protect one from a well executed bluff. The point is that you can't prove in flight that it is *not* a bomb.
  • Too bad its not really FUD if you agree with it. Remember, FUD is only FUD is Microsoft or John Ashcroft are the author.

  • I can't get to it! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jlleblanc ( 582587 ) <contact@jlleblBO ... minus physicist> on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:35PM (#5722288) Homepage
    My school's filter [s4f.com] has blocked the Muzzle Awards [tjcenter.org] under the category of "Pornographic and Recreational Nudity"! -Joe

  • schools (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hollowmadman ( 529544 ) <vacaman@eSTRAWxt ... .com minus berry> on Sunday April 13, 2003 @01:41PM (#5722320) Homepage
    did anyone else notice that there were a disproportionate number of awards going to institutions of learning? namely, school districts including middle schools and high schools?

    i don't know about anyone else, but this is a scary proposition for me. schools trying to prohibit the dissemination of information about different cultures and schools of thought speaks volumes about the types of people that are educating our young people. if i let my kids in the future go through a given school system, i want availble to them a variety of vantage points, not just the "right one" as prescribed by the administration.

  • At my school... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bjtuna ( 70129 ) <brian&intercarve,net> on Sunday April 13, 2003 @02:00PM (#5722412) Homepage
    The Johns Hopkins University here in Baltimore, MD views itself as a potential "soft target" for terrorists, due to its being a high-profile educational institution.

    Since February, Hopkins has had a van parked in front of 34th street [jhu.edu] to keep terrorists from blowing up the freshman dorms with a car bomb.

    Presumably this was done to pre-emptively quell the fears of parents who might think JHU wasn't doing enough to keep their kids safe. Nevermind that the side streets allow terrorists equal access to the dorms [jhu.edu], that the freshman dorms probably aren't high on Osama's list of Baltimore targets, and that the number of people in the world who knew Hopkins was anything but a hospital can be counted on one hand.

    Otherwise a harmless gesture of stupidity, aside from the fact that 34th Street is a free parking zone with about 20 spaces. Its closing has created a major parking shortage in the entire University area. For those of us that actually have to deal with it on a daily basis, this is more than just whining- this is a true inconvenience.

    Stupid.

  • Not even from tea... (Score:5, Funny)

    by FurryFeet ( 562847 ) <joudanx&yahoo,com> on Sunday April 13, 2003 @02:00PM (#5722415)
    I like that I'm being protected from tea. It makes me feel safe.

    Read the article. They stopped an airplane passenger because he was carrying a box of gunpowder tea. After some investigating and discussing, they decided he could, in fact, carry the tea, but they had to impound the box with the evil word "gunpowder". So, they transferred the tea to a plastic bag, after which the passenger proceded to the plane.
    So, no, they're not protecting you. They let the gunpowder tea onboard, those incompetent fools! What next? Bazooka Joe gum?
    I'm telling you, what we need is more restrictions. I'm glad these gentlemen got the recognition they so richly deserve.

  • Some repeat history out of ignorance (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @02:04PM (#5722435)
    Others because they just don't care.

    I looked through the Jefferson Muzzles an the one thing that struck me was that the damn things keep repeating. Its the same things that have been going on for ever before the awards for started.

    The scenario is always the same some small or petty elected/appointed official decides what the hell I am going to do this anyway. Its not that they don't know whats gone before. Its not that they don't understand. Theyre just assholes and theres no good way to make certain that the pain they cause others gets back to them in a timely fashion.

    It's not just government, its any organization that thinks its managed to achieve a level of insulation. You can put in your favorite (Phone Co., Power Co., Cable Co. (often the best purchase a political contribution can buy), Microsoft, legacy app vendor ).

  • on npr friday morning. you can listen to a stream of it here [npr.org]

    it's streamed in either real or wmp.

  • Also on topic -- the RAVE act passed (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @02:15PM (#5722485) Homepage
    A rant about it [dnalounge.com]

    The RAVE act basically means, if there are any drugs on your property, no matter whether they belong to someone else or whether you knew about it, are your responsibility, and your property may be forfeit and you can be subject to a ludicrous fine.

    The full text of the law. [emdef.org]
    • They way arround that requires people stand up and put themselves on the line for what they belive in...

      Just call the cops on yourself and tell them you are waiting in the bushes of the mayor/governor/judge's house. Once arrested, ask if they will also arrest the property owner. If they refuse, then the local buisness owners can file a lawsuit agianst the city for selective prosicution.

      Of course, you'd still be in jail :( In order to add some power to it, make sure you have several hundred people there

    • You are a few decades late. The police already could do this before the "RAVE" act.

      Here in the US, the police can do anything they want. The criminals can do anything they want. The politians can do anything they want. The corporations can do anything they want. But the common people aren't allowed to live their lives. Plus they get the added bonus of working their lives away for nothing, having everything stolen from them, and being arrested for crimes they didn't commit.

      Funny, I thought this country's

  • People don't think through security issues (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cmacb ( 547347 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @02:27PM (#5722534) Homepage Journal
    The Jefferson Muzzle Awards seemed well reasoned on average. The Stupid Security Competition much less so.

    Just one example: San Fransisco's subway system BART is criticized for closing their public restrooms. In Washington DC the subway systems was designed 20 years or so ago without public restrooms in the first place. It is in fact hard to find a spot in the DC subway system where you are not under the watchfull eye of a video camera, all being monitored by at least one attendant visible to the public (I think the feeds go to a central location as well). Since they don't put subway stops in deserted parts of the city, this is hardly a major inconvenience. You simply visit a public restroom before you enter the station.

    I can't think of any security measures anywhere that don't have at least one of the following problems:

    1. Inconvenient
    2. Invasion of privacy
    3. Not 100 percent effective

    The awards seem to include examples of all three. When I have talked to people who complain about various security measures I try to come up with scenarios that would justify the specific measure that they are complaining about. I can almost always get them to say "Oh, I never thought of that."

    In a perfect world we would do this experiment: Every city would have TWO airports. One with the current mix of inconvenient, invasive, and imperfect security checks, the other with only the most cursory check in place (like US Airports in the 50's). Pilots, passengers and employees would use/work at the airport of their own choosing. There would probably be significant cost savings associated with having little or no security measures in place, so that airport could use lower costs as an incentive too.

    I'd love to see the long-term results.

    • The fact of any security measure being not 100% effective is the critical one, and completely vitiates most procedures. You may be able to rationalize a scenario that explains a procedure. But the low occurance of the feared scenario, coupled with the imperfections often make the system with the new procedure work worse than the old.

      Since terrorism happens so infrequently, we can't tell if terrorist acts have decreased, increased, or stayed the same since any new tightened procedures have been implemente
    • Next you'll want to designate a city or town as a "War on drug"-free zone, where drug use is considered a sickness and not a crime. You'll suggest getting people into rehab rather than prison.

      Won't you please think of the children!?!?!?!?!

    • Stupid security (Score:3, Insightful)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 )
      The devil is usually in the details, though. Let me provide some examples of stupid airport security (and contrast to good security examples).

      1: Flew to Ecuador-- in Newark, out JFK. The terminal in JFK had the ticket counters in the same physical space as the gates *with no possibility&* of a wall or checkpoint between. Thus,the security checkpoint had to be before you get to the ticket counter, and every piece of luggage must be assumed to be a carry-on (you cannot have a knife in your checked lu
  • You can not bring bottled water w/ a lid into a stadium because when full, they can be EASILY tossed onto to field or into the crowd and it acts as a missle. This policy started a little while ago after quite a few people figured this out during a game (I cant remember when / where but IIRC, it was the start of last season).

    I just had to throw the lid away when I went into Arrowhead.

  • About that gunpowder tea... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ozan ( 176854 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @03:15PM (#5722780) Homepage
    I think they refused the passenger to take the foil with 'gunpowder' written on it on board because he might fake a bottle of actual gunpowder and threaten to blow it up in the plane. This is why no toy-weapons are alowed on board, too.

    Just my idea.
    • "Haha! This small thing has gunpowder written on it! You shall all die!

      I faked it in a difficult manner by bringing gunpowder tea onboard instead of just writing it on the bottle or using something that looks slightly like gunpowder and just saying what it is!"
  • I think the thing with disposeable lighters being allowed and refillable ones not is that you could fill the lighter with something other than lighter fuel, but it's still stupid because they let you on with bottled drinks even if they're opened already.

    graspee

  • MOST EGREGIOUSLY STUPID AWARD WINNER - THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

    As an Australian I too was amused that our government's response to an increased public awareness of terrorism, was to send us all fridge magnets.

    HOWEVER...
    The nominator for this award states TWICE that "there are no proven instances of any terrorist activity whatsoever targetted at Australia."

    So the 84 Australian victims of the bombing attack in Bali, who were SPECIFICALLY TARGETTED by a terrorist group (members of the group admitted a
    • I thought this nomination was a little over the top too....

      After Bali, there were definitely enough people worried that the government had to do something....

      That terrorism reporting phone number was more about letting people feel that they'd done something rather than have them form an angry mob and start lynching the nearest person of 'Middle Eastern Appearance'

  • A scary trend (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ChaoticLimbs ( 597275 ) on Sunday April 13, 2003 @06:16PM (#5723689) Journal
    I have noticed lately that there are very concerted attempts from both the radical left and extreme right wings to limit speech that they find offensive. It is very troubling. The lefties want to limit "offensive" speech- like Mark Twain- , and the right wing-nuts want to ban BAD things like NUDITY.

    I think both of these extreme groups need to take a breather. How about READING Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. The "nigger" Jim was the most noble and compassionate character. Even as an opressed slave man, he showed that his humanity remained with him. He was the earliest black character to portray true nobility. Sure, he was uneducated and ignorant of many things, but his character was unselfish and kind. Can no-one spot the irony of someone like Jim being called "the nigger" by even his closest friends?

    And realistically, I have two young sons, and I object more to the gratuitous and unrealistic violence on television than nudity. Nudity is part of human existence and is almost never offensive. (okay, the nudity in "1984" offended me). I would trade 50% of the violence for 300% more nudity if humans must be titillated in order to watch TV.

    Just remember, folks, the PC crowd and the Religious Right may disagree on what should be banned and why, but they're basically identical personalities, believing themselves to know best for OUR kids.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close