Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 10:46 UTC
Legal The US is really ramping up its war on intellectual property infringement, a war which I'm sure will be just as successful, cheap and supported by the people as the wars on drugs and terrorism. The US has started seizing the domain names of various websites through ICANN - not because owners of these sites were convicted of anything, but merely because complaints have been filed against them. Anyone want to take a guess how long it will be before the US government blocks WikiLeaks? Update: The blocks function outside of the US too. In other words, the US is forcing its views upon the rest of the world once again.
Thread beginning with comment 451317
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Sausage
by Sausage on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Sausage"
Member since:

I agree with you about the TSA. They have one... caveat, if you will... that allows them to circumvent what would normally be a clear cut privacy violations case. No airport within the US is obligated to use the TSA. You are, in essence, giving implied consent to be searched by utilizing an airport that choses to use TSA for security. There is nothing in the law that says that airports, which are not government owned, have to use TSA. In fact, some congressmen are calling for airports to drop TSA completely and go with private security... and some airports are considering it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Sausage
by telns on Sat 27th Nov 2010 16:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Sausage"
telns Member since:

No airport within the US is obligated to use the TSA.

No, but the TSA sets the procedures. So even if the airports switch to private contractors, the TSA tells them what machines to use, and what pat-down methods to use.

You are, in essence, giving implied consent to be searched by utilizing an airport that choses to use TSA for security.

I disagree. Everyone has a prima facie right to travel where and as they see fit, which should only ever be interrupted in extraordinary circumstances. If I have a right to do something, and you order me that I won't be allowed to exercise that right unless I do what you want first, that is extortion. Even if I comply with your demands, it doesn't make it consent, because the demand was what violated my rights. It isn't consent in any legal or moral sense anymore than it is consent if I hand over my wallet to a thug, because he promised as long as I gave it over quietly he wouldn't pull the trigger. I can weigh the costs and decide handing it over is better than dying, but my "consent" with the thief's demand does not magically exonerate him of any moral or legal guilt.

If there were free competition in airport security processes, I might agree with you, but there is not. All "public" airports and airlines are heavily controlled by the US Federal government, and as I mentioned above, the TSA dictates the security methods whether or not the airport chooses to use TSA employees for screeners. There is no escaping it, and there is no choice. You either "consent" to the thugs' demands or you are denied your right to fly.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Sausage
by Lennie on Sat 27th Nov 2010 18:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Sausage"
Lennie Member since:

Some airports do not make use of the services of the TSA, but they do have to abide by similair rules.

If you are interrested in reading up on the subject, you should really look at this blog-post:

Also it doesn't mean the TSA-officers are happy about it all themselfs:

Summary: these procedures do not work, they don't not make you safer.

Simple example any terrorist can just blow up the people when they are queued waiting to go through these procedures.

Reply Parent Score: 4