tfdl

On August 4th 2007, TSA implemented revisions to its screening procedures for head coverings. TSA does not conduct ethnic or religious profiling, and employs multiple checks and balances to ensure profiling does not happen.

All members of the traveling public are permitted to wear head coverings (whether religious or not) through the security checkpoints. The new standard procedures subject all persons wearing head coverings to the possibility of additional security screening, which may include a pat-down search of the head covering. Individuals may be referred for additional screening if the security officer cannot reasonably determine that the head area is free of a detectable threat item. If the issue cannot be resolved through a pat-down search, the individual will be offered the opportunity to remove the head covering in a private screening area.

TSA's security procedures, including the procedures for screening head coverings, are designed to ensure the security of the traveling public. These procedures are part of TSA's multi-layered approach to security screening.

So what is the problem? Well for one, how can this new procedure not have as a practical impact the targeting of members of the Sikh community who wear turbans as part of their religious and cultural identity? Adding insult to injury, the TSA specifically mentioned Sikh turbans as examples of headcoverings that will trigger heightened screening. Furthermore, these procedures were implemented secretly without consulting members of religious and cultural organizations who are being affected by these intrusive measures.

For another, let's be real... if the metal detection equipment is at all adequate, then there is little chance of "headcovered travelers" carrying weapons on to the planes, so there must be some concern that these travelers may be carrying an inordinate amount of liquids under those coverings. That's a lot of liquid!

Again, these types of overly intrusive procedures serve to increase the number of false positives, while also increasing the amount of irritation, inconvenience, and in some cases needless humiliation of lawful, loyal citizens.

When is enough enough? When will these tradeoffs be calculated, and Americans see that many of these security procedures cause us to be less safe and less free.

Posted by Edd at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The odd thing is that right now I am connected to an unsecured router (my own as it happens). I have on more than one occasion used OPB (other people's broadband) in a pinch, and frankly don't care a wit if someone uses mine in a pinch as well.

The odd thing about the story is that it does not say what the owner of the broadband connection had to say on the matter.

Details here.

Posted by Edd at 7:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here is a very useful, and humorous, flowchart that begins with the question: "Does the damn thing work?" Yes or no. Wonderful options ensue.
Originally from the book, Antarctica, by Kim Robinson.

Posted by Edd at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

First of all two questions come to mind: 1) Did he count these up, or is this another made-up statistic meandering through the tubes of the internets? And 2) Why does "homeland" have such a vague fascist tone to it? Maybe something to do with "Fatherland"? Why not "Domestic Security"? OK that's three questions, no, wait, four...

In this piece on CNN.com it seems that, if states do not comply with the mandates of DHS, law-abiding Americans from said states may be denied access to federal facilities such as local federal offices, or national parks without some such recognized "Real ID" (like a passport).

This is all beginning to look a lot like an internal passport system. How long before the average American will be confronted by a trench-coated government agent with the greeting "Your papers please"?

It all getting a little too Germanic...

Again here is the article.

Posted by Edd at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Somehow, someway, society needs to keep tabs on these creeps.

Here is the story in the Orlando newspaper.

h/t Asst Philadelphia DA Charlie Gallagher

Posted by Edd at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Very quietly a prominent lawyer in Sacramento applied to have an initiative placed on next year's ballot that, if passed, will allocate electoral votes by congressional district, rather than the current "winner take all" situation.

What would this mean in next year's presidential election? Most likely it would mean a Republican victory in a close national election. Why? Because as Hendrik Hertzberg writes in his piece, Votescam, in The New Yorker Magazine that this would give the minority party (in this case the Republicans) "an unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes."

The Orwellian title for this initiative is the Presidential Election Reform Act, and it is sponsored by "Californians for Equal Representation". Innocuous as the name of the organization sounds, it is an eerily familiar ruse - there is no such organization. The address on the letterhead is the same as the law firm that represents the California Republican Party.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, because the primary date has been moved up to early February, the usual election day in June will probably be little noted and poorly attended with few ballots cast. This stealth approach would clearly advantage the minority party.

Hertzberg concludes thusly:

California Initiative No. 07-0032 is an audacious power play packaged as a step forward for democratic fairness. It's the lotusland equivalent of Tom DeLay's 2003 midterm redistricting in Texas, except with a sweeter smell, a better disguise, and larger stakes. And the only way Californians will reject it is if they have a chance to think about it first.

Posted by Edd at 8:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is not going to go well for Johnson & Johnson.

Here is the IHT article.

Dvorak has a photo of the offensive product here.

Posted by Edd at 7:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ABC News recently published information about the terror plot in the UK last year involving liquid explosives. In a test by Sandia National Labs (video link here), it seems that these liquids disguised as sports drinks could have done catastrophic damage. On the other hand, it is also clear that these would-be bombers lacked the expertise to actually detonate the bombs.

So, it seems that good intelligence still trumps the security theater that is still the status quo.

Posted by Edd at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If the economy is so great, what to make of this?

A new super Wal-Mart store in suburban Detroit had 5,000 applicants line up for 300 jobs. The average hourly salary for these positions is $10.50. It seems that the new working class is now called the working poor.

Geez. Here is the link.

Posted by Edd at 7:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The time for more time has passed.

In a recent posting entitled Déjà Vu on The Huffington Post, Randy Beers, president of the National Security Network, a progressive think-tank focusing on foreign policy and politics, has presented on of the most cogent analyses of he present situation in Iraq, why the present military strategy there will not work, and what new strategy just might.

Here is a sampling:

Unable in this environment to foresee what the United States and the international community will do next, Iraqis are choosing the proximate security of their faction over any broader vision. Unable to depend on the central government, the United States now aligns itself with local militias in hopes of achieving local success, but, in reality, merely reinforcing factionalism and undermining the national government we profess to defend.

As a young lieutenant, I was taught that a failing strategy demanded alternatives. Committing one's forces to costly frontal assaults in the Iraqi quagmire is better replaced by a strategy allowing flexibility and economy of force. The time for more time has passed. It's time for Iraq's neighbors to join the political reconciliation process in Iraq or, at minimum, to contain the violence to Iraq. It's time for serious U.S. involvement in the Middle East Peace Process. And it's time to focus on the real Al Qaeda along the Pak-Afghan border. But only beginning the U.S. disengagement from Iraq will allow such alternatives to prosper.

Once again we are reminded that one of the most common reasons for continuing ot choose what is not working is the idea of a "sunk cost", and that hte only way out of that rtap is to realize that those costs are indeed "sunk", so they should no longer be part of any decision-making caculus.

Posted by Edd at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)