There used to be an old, old joke on slashdot. Whatever the topic, somebody would say "I, for one welcome our new X overlords"
I, for one, welcome our new security overlords.
For some reason, it doesn't sound as funny anymore.
There was a story recently about how all sorts of various agencies now want their own drones to watch the citizenry as we go about our normal lives. I'll never forget an interview the reporter had with a Congressman. His basic stance was something along the lines of "Boys will be boys. This is just all sorts of other agencies wanting to get in on the UAV bandwagon."
My point is this: I don't think our elected representatives take any of this very seriously at all, no matter what they might say during an election or on TV. I don't think it bothers them for one second that the TSA gets to pick it's own witnesses for each day, or that gradually we're turning into a security state. I just don't think it really registers on their radar.
I found the comment that points out that having both parties in the same hearing who are under oath and currently engaged in a lawsuit, might find themselves making statements or responding without the benefit of having their counsel present. Then one might turn around and subpoena that testimony into the lawsuit and add it in as evidence, fairly compelling.
That being said, it is how the game is played. If one of your representatives are on the committee I would recommend writing them a note, or calling their office, to express how you think they should oversee the activities of the TSA.
One of the issues which needs more coverage is that Security Theatre is not 'harmless mostly, possibly helpful' it is in fact 'harmful mostly, possibly helpful'. This sort of theater cuts into business productivity, makes folks on the planes grumpier, causes millions of dollars in losses when folks miss planes, and erodes the citizens trust in their legitimate law enforcement agencies. It is not harmless, it is harmful and that message needs to get to Congress.
Actually, I'm pretty sure there's no compelling legal reason for the TSA to do this. If what the TSA says is admissible in a later trial (which it likely would be[1]), it will be admissible whether or not Schneier is present at this hearing. The legal angle would explain why Schneier wouldn't want to testify, but he's apparently game.
Coming from the TSA, it amounts to "we are afraid to face questions from someone who will know enough to ask hard questions." Which I agree is unsurprising, but it's not exactly a compelling defense of their position.
> Actually, I'm pretty sure there's no compelling legal reason for the TSA to do this. If what the TSA says is admissible in a later trial (which it likely would be[1]), it will be admissible whether or not Schneier is present at this hearing.
The thing is that what they say changes depending on whether there are hard questions asked or not.
If they're both in the same Congressional hearing, Bruce can ask them pointed questions which they would be compelled to answer. This means he could theoretically ask them questions that pertain to the lawsuit that they would then have to respond to, without the benefit of counsel, as they say.
I still think it blows ass, and it's a cheap maneuver to keep the mongoose out of the snake pit.
What power do you think Bruce has to compel them to answer questions?
It's up to Congress whether the TSA is forced to answer a question, and Bruce Schneier is not a member of Congress, he was just going to testify before them. He has no special power over the TSA.
He has the special power where he can formulate and present a question that is intriguing enough so that Congress might break out of their daydreams about what it was like being a kid in the 20s and how these people just sit here and bitch when they really got it so easy long enough to think, 'hey, this scraggly looking feller has a good question. Maybe we should make the TSA answer this one since it sounds intelligent and we can't understand it, rather than trying to come up with questiosn of our own.'
If the topic of the lawsuit is going to be discussed, then the invited TSA agent's testimony at the hearing could be relevant to the lawsuit regardless of whether Schneier is there. If the topic of the lawsuit is not going to be discussed, then everything is OK. Remember congress people will do the questioning, not Schneier or Schneier's council. Perhaps Schneier's mere presence could inject some lawsuit-related questions (using a zero-day legal flaw the congress-testimony process, perhaps?) but this possibility seems remote.
More on topic: I believe that one of the main reasons why they don't take it seriously is because they are literally above the law here. They don't have to go through the same process that ordinary travelers do. I can't find an authoritative source, so either all of Congress or only those senior members traveling with a security detail are exempt, but either way, those in charge don't understand the full impact it has on ordinary people's lives.
Rep. Jasn Chaffetz famously got into a big fight with TSA when he was asked to go through the millimeter wave scanner, having just previously embarked on a fight to get rid of them.
It's only because currently the politicians belong to a "protected" class that do not have worry over such policies, they are above them. But as history shows, eventually most of these protected class will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us and suddenly they will care. But by then it will be too late.
This kind of thinking is dangerously misguided. You're not "turning into" a security state, you are a security state. "Freedom of speech zones" and all the other newspeak bullshit, the OWS crackdown, SOPA, ACTA, etc., to name but a few, are not stepping stones on the path to tyranny. They are tyranny. You guys have already arrived. You're there. And your society will not be able to do anything about it until it realizes this.
So quit talking as though it's something that's going to happen if you're not really careful, and start talking as though it has already happened and something needs to be done about it.
I've had a few drinks, so this may come back to bite me in the ass one day, rather than show my usual constraint, but:
Hell yeah. They have had the right to read the subject lines of emails for decades they have been listening in on conversations since the Patriot Act. It's at the point where I, as a Canadian, have vowed not to take a flight into the states due to privacy (both in terms of fingerprints as well as those stupid scanners) until the law changes.
This is starting to impact peaceful, intelligent people. It isn't showing the economic ramifications yet, but it will 10 to 20 years from now. The smart people from Canada (and, presumably, the rest of the world) don't want to come anymore. The US can suffer this in the short term, but in the long term, especially with long term obligations like SS and Medicare/Medicaid, it cannot.
You are too late. The smart people already do not come to the United States. The smart people are cancelling their US passports. Capital is not entering the USA. This type of work puts bread on the table for me. I'm in Dubai right now meeting people who need to encapsulate and neutralize the US-caused problems in their lives. Last week I was in Indonesia.
The world a big world. Someone can live a good life and become a billionaire without touching the USA. The US risks declaring itself irrelevant through its treatment of isitors and investors. And through the entirely execrable FATCA.
I remember growing up as a boy in Africa how the pound sterling went from reserve currency status to "who cares" by a series of lackluster Prime Ministers in Britain. The same is happening in the US.
"As a result of FATCA, European banks such as Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank, HSBC, and Credit Suisse have been closing brokerage accounts for all US customers since early 2011 citing "onerous" US regulations, which FATCA will make more complex when it goes into effect in 2013"
Reported by Der Spiegel (which I expect to be a reputable source).
I, for one, welcome our new security overlords.
For some reason, it doesn't sound as funny anymore.
There was a story recently about how all sorts of various agencies now want their own drones to watch the citizenry as we go about our normal lives. I'll never forget an interview the reporter had with a Congressman. His basic stance was something along the lines of "Boys will be boys. This is just all sorts of other agencies wanting to get in on the UAV bandwagon."
My point is this: I don't think our elected representatives take any of this very seriously at all, no matter what they might say during an election or on TV. I don't think it bothers them for one second that the TSA gets to pick it's own witnesses for each day, or that gradually we're turning into a security state. I just don't think it really registers on their radar.