RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder --- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [airport security] More indications of an emerging 'Brazil' scenario, as opposed to a hyper-intelligent super-fascist state. As if. There already is a kind of intelligent super-fascist state in place thoughout much of society. My bugbears of the moment are the police and courts, so you get my take on how they are organised so as to be 'intelligent' without seeming so -- which further enables a whole lot of fraud to masqerade as process and incompetence. The super-fascist part comes about because the system avoids public accountability while also somehow evading any sort of reasonable standard of performance. What's the error rate, that is the false arrest, prosecution, and/or conviction rate of a Western countries' judiciary and police divitions? If it's even ten percent, and it's probably much higher, then there is no reason to respect the operation and perpetuation of the system. One chilling data point. Remember a few years ago the (pro death penalty) governor of Illinois suspended all the death sentences in has state? The reason being was that with the introduction of DNA testing, 1/3 of the people on death row were found to be innocent. I don't know how many other innocents the state planned to murder, but presumably there were some cases where DNA evidence was not available. If, in a capital case, where the money to pay public defenders is usually maximally available, and the appeals process, checks, and cross-checks are the more thorough than in any non-capital prosecution, you STILL get at least a 33% error rate, then what is the wrongfull conviction rate in non-capital cases, where there are far fewer appeals, and public defenders are paid a pittance? Peter Trei
RE: Ronald McDonald's SS
--- James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- On 24 Jan 2005 at 10:34, Tyler Durden wrote: Military and civilian participants said in interviews that the new unit has been operating in secret for two years -- in Iraq (news - web sites), Well hell, it's doing such a good job already it should definitely be expanded! Note that the main enemy it is aimed against is the CIA, and it's existence was successfully kept secret from the CIA for this time. (For had the CIA detected it, they would have instantly leaked the information, the same way they have leaked so much other stuff.) I rather doubt that anyone outside of the CIA could really say what they would or would not do in such a situation. Recall that people in that world view deceit as much more than a skill. It's more of a way of life to them, and as a result of so many years of rounds of layerd deceit colouring their operations, the analysis of their actions is bound to fail when approached with that kind of simplicity. Oh, by the way. The last post I made in reply to you went unanswered just when I was starting to make some difficult points. Surely that was an oversight? Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
--- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [airport security] More indications of an emerging 'Brazil' scenario, as opposed to a hyper-intelligent super-fascist state. As if. There already is a kind of intelligent super-fascist state in place thoughout much of society. My bugbears of the moment are the police and courts, so you get my take on how they are organised so as to be 'intelligent' without seeming so -- which further enables a whole lot of fraud to masqerade as process and incompetence. The super-fascist part comes about because the system avoids public accountability while also somehow evading any sort of reasonable standard of performance. What's the error rate, that is the false arrest, prosecution, and/or conviction rate of a Western countries' judiciary and police divitions? If it's even ten percent, and it's probably much higher, then there is no reason to respect the operation and perpetuation of the system. And consider how the courts deal with error. After all is said and done, the victim is expected to launch appeals at his own expense to force the system to take official notice of judicial error. We know how dilligent the police are at bringing creativity to their investigations and arrests. Countless examples abound of fraud and abuse of processs. And the population at large carries on as if it doesn't matter. Well in my not so humble fucking opinion, if police and judicial officials in Canada (or the US, or wherever) wish to acquire respect and lend the appearance of legitimacy to their operations, then they should bloody well bring some transparent accountability to their operations and more, should take exacting pains to ensure that they conduct their affairs so as to put their integrety beyond question for anyone who examines their fucking books. And when they *do* err, they should fucking well bend over backwards to correct their god damn mistakes. AND when they catch one of their own abusing his or her position of authority that fucker should be PILLORIED for the least offense. But no, this does not and will not occur because the police and courts have had decades of self-selection in their recruiting processes, and decades of deirected evolution applied to their internal culture and processes. It is considered more proper to rule by fear, than to consider that wageing a de facto war on the civilian population as being even slightly wrong. Since it is considered *normal* for their to be a high error rate, it is only natural for the intelligent special interest groups within the government to exploit the lax standards to crushing competing groups and individuals who might pose a latent threat to the extant corrupt culture. And then there are those nasty writers who won't wedge their ideology into the narrow confines of mass consumer culture, and well there's all sorts of legal ways to deal with *that* kind of trouble-maker. And so on. Petty little tyrants have all sorts of latitude for abuse, but so do real villans like the ones directing your military contractors. State of the art in pulling the strings of government is to view (at different levels, and different levels of abstraction) departments and ministries as black boxes with adjustable inputs. Some inputs are more adjustable than others, of course, and there are levels of access to the inputs, but the approach is sound. I suppose it might take a well-placed CIA agent to subtly adjust CPIC records to suit an RCMP officer's relative's influence peddling, but the nice thing about reciprocal arrangements is that they may be negotiated and traded by fascist and highly placed warmongers. And we don't care because most people are brainwashed into blindly accepting the norm of incompetent ineffiency in all official matters. Indeed, for many it's a game that is only slightly more real than arcade shoot'em-ups but much more sophisticated. Of course no individual is at all required to respect such unnecessary corruption, and I certainly do not. (Why would I, considering the marauding warmongers who have been entirely subverting my ambitions and interests for years, simply because they like the challenge.) And in continuing with the outing, I predict that God was named John by his parents, and has official carte blanche to fuck up the lives of Canadian citizens given to him by his pet dogs in the Canadian government. Gutless weasels. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: Ronald McDonald's SS
-- James A. Donald: Note that the main enemy it is aimed against is the CIA, and it's existence was successfully kept secret from the CIA for this time. (For had the CIA detected it, they would have instantly leaked the information, the same way they have leaked so much other stuff.) On 24 Jan 2005 at 19:43, Steve Thompson wrote: I rather doubt that anyone outside of the CIA could really say what they would or would not do in such a situation. They would do what they always done in recent decades - suck up to the Democrat party. (Which is a major improvement on the state department which sucks up to America's enemies.) --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG xXYVRz8r4ISHikxse8xuVwxMzucHB3T/3oeeirPa 4RMOddYiQx7wKxSQrA36cczivHFYNiqG4Zrxha+SM
RE: Ronald McDonald's SS
Were you pissed when you found out? -TD From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Ronald McDonald's SS Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:51:07 -0800 -- On 24 Jan 2005 at 10:34, Tyler Durden wrote: Military and civilian participants said in interviews that the new unit has been operating in secret for two years -- in Iraq (news - web sites), Well hell, it's doing such a good job already it should definitely be expanded! Note that the main enemy it is aimed against is the CIA, and it's existence was successfully kept secret from the CIA for this time. (For had the CIA detected it, they would have instantly leaked the information, the same way they have leaked so much other stuff.) --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG KsFrtFSMHXcDohroqAdPG4sz0/zlWutoJnTTVx33 4RrZF0Pj1rWQ7L2OUmPyd0vZu4myhO+ICGi7PHb+j
RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
If, in a capital case, where the money to pay public defenders is usually maximally available, and the appeals process, checks, and cross-checks are the more thorough than in any non-capital prosecution, you STILL get at least a 33% error rate, then what is the wrongfull conviction rate in non-capital cases, where there are far fewer appeals, and public defenders are paid a pittance? And of course there's the fairly obvious point that lots of those in prison correctly are there for drug-related crimes. Said crimes would almost completely dissappear and drug usage would drop if many of those drugs were legalized and taxed. But God forbid that happen because what would all those policemen do for a living? Prison workers? Judges? -TD From: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steve Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:01:26 -0500 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder --- Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [airport security] More indications of an emerging 'Brazil' scenario, as opposed to a hyper-intelligent super-fascist state. As if. There already is a kind of intelligent super-fascist state in place thoughout much of society. My bugbears of the moment are the police and courts, so you get my take on how they are organised so as to be 'intelligent' without seeming so -- which further enables a whole lot of fraud to masqerade as process and incompetence. The super-fascist part comes about because the system avoids public accountability while also somehow evading any sort of reasonable standard of performance. What's the error rate, that is the false arrest, prosecution, and/or conviction rate of a Western countries' judiciary and police divitions? If it's even ten percent, and it's probably much higher, then there is no reason to respect the operation and perpetuation of the system. One chilling data point. Remember a few years ago the (pro death penalty) governor of Illinois suspended all the death sentences in has state? The reason being was that with the introduction of DNA testing, 1/3 of the people on death row were found to be innocent. I don't know how many other innocents the state planned to murder, but presumably there were some cases where DNA evidence was not available. If, in a capital case, where the money to pay public defenders is usually maximally available, and the appeals process, checks, and cross-checks are the more thorough than in any non-capital prosecution, you STILL get at least a 33% error rate, then what is the wrongfull conviction rate in non-capital cases, where there are far fewer appeals, and public defenders are paid a pittance? Peter Trei
RE: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
More indications of an emerging 'Brazil' scenario, as opposed to a hyper-intelligent super-fascist state. -TD From: R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cryptography@metzdowd.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], osint@yahoogroups.com Subject: Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:19:25 -0500 http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB110661076703534640,00.html The Wall Street Journal January 25, 2005 THE MIDDLE SEAT By SCOTT MCCARTNEY Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder More Travelers Are Stopped For 'Secondary' Checks; A Missed Flight to Atlanta January 25, 2005 The frequency of secondary security screening at airports has increased, and complaints are soaring. Roughly one in every seven passengers is now tagged for secondary screening -- a special search in which an airport screener runs a metal-detecting wand around a traveler's body, then pats down the passenger and searches through bags -- according to the Transportation Security Administration. Currently, 10% to 15% of passengers are picked randomly before boarding passes are issued, the TSA says. An additional number -- the TSA won't say how many -- are selected by the government's generic profiling system, where buying a one-way ticket, paying cash or other factors can earn you extra screening. And more travelers are picked by TSA screeners who spot suspicious bulges or shapes under clothing. It's fair to say the frequency of secondary screening has gone up, says TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter. Screeners have greater discretion. That may explain why passenger complaints about screening have roughly doubled every month since August. According to numbers compiled by the TSA and reported to the Department of Transportation, 83 travelers complained about screening in August, then 150 in September and 385 in October. By November, the last month reported, complaints had skyrocketed to 652. To be sure, increased use of pat-down procedures in late September after terrorists smuggled bombs aboard two planes in Russia undoubtedly boosted those numbers, though many of those complaints were categorized as courtesy issues, not screening, in the data TSA reports to the DOT. There were 115 courtesy complaints filed with the DOT in September, then 690 in October. By November, the number of courtesy complaints receded to 218. Yet the increased traveler anger at secondary screening hasn't receded. Road warriors complain bitterly about the arbitrary nature of the screening -- many get singled out for one leg of a trip, but not another. For Douglas Downing, a secondary-screening problem resulted in a canceled trip. Mr. Downing was flying from Seattle to Atlanta last fall. He went through security routinely and sat at the gate an hour ahead of his flight's departure. As he boarded, a Delta Air Lines employee noticed that his boarding pass, marked with , hadn't been cleared by the TSA. He was sent back to the security checkpoint. By the time he got screened and returned to the gate, the flight had departed. Delta offered a later flight, but his schedule was so tight he had to cancel the trip. Delta did refund the ticket, even though the airline said it was the TSA's mistake not to catch the screening code. TSA officials blamed Delta. TSA screeners often blame airlines, according to frequent travelers. Ask a screener why you got picked for screening, and they often say the airline does the selection and questions should be directed to the airline. But airlines say they shouldn't be blamed, since they are only running the TSA's programs, and the TSA's Ms. von Walter concurs. I wouldn't go so far as to say we're blaming them, she said. Perhaps some screeners are misinformed in those cases. She also says the TSA isn't sure why screening complaints have risen so sharply since August, although the agency says it may be the result of greater TSA advertising of its contact center (e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or call 1-866-289-9673). If you do get picked, here is how it happened. The TSA requires airlines to pick 10% to 15% of travelers at random. Airlines can de-select a passenger picked at random, such as a child, officials say. In addition, the government's current passenger-profiling system, called Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS, picks out passengers. The system, which resides in or communicates with each airline's reservation computers, gives you a score based largely on how you bought your ticket. Airline officials say the TSA has changed the different weightings given various factors, and certain markets may have higher programmed rates for selectees. Passenger lists also are checked against the TSA's list of suspicious names, which has included rather common names and even names of U.S. senators. Interestingly, airline gate agents who see suspicious-looking passengers can no longer flag them for security. Some ticket-counter agents did flag several hijackers for extra security on Sept. 11, 2001, and were
Blinky's Pitch-Man Speaks: Terror's Server
At 3:14 PM -0400 10/3/04, R. A. Hettinga wrote: In arbitrary order (in other words, *I* chose it. :-)), and with apologies to Toru Iwatani, by way of Michael Thomasson at http://www.gooddealgames.com/articles/Pac-Man%20Ghosts.html, here it is: A Proposed Nomenclature for the Four Horseman of The Infocalypse Horseman Color Character Nickname 1 TerrorismRedShadow Blinky 2 NarcoticsPink Speedy Pinky 3 Money Laundering Aqua Bashful Inky 4 Paedophilia Yellow Pokey Clyde It is acceptable to refer to a horseman by any of the above, i.e., Horseman No. 1, The Red Horseman, Shadow, or Blinky. Apparently there was a, um, pre-deceased, dark-blue ghost, used in Japanese tournament play, named Kinky, I leave that particular horseman for quibblers. --- http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/02/issue/feature_terror.asp?p=0 Technology Review Terror's Server By David Talbot Febuary 2005 NOTEBOOK Richard A. Clarke spent 11 years in senior policymaking positions at the White House, advising presidents on matters of counterterrorism and cyber security. When the Sept. 11 attacks took place he was the counterterrorism adviser to the National Security Council. He now heads Good Harbor Consulting. Clarke recently spoke with Technology Review Chief Correspondent David Talbot about terrorist exploitation of the Internet. David Talbot: How is the use of the Internet by terrorist groups changing? Richard Clarke: It's important for publicity and propaganda purposes. It is one of their best vehicles for that. It may be useful for communications, but I think they are increasingly relying on (human) couriers. There is some potential that they are using the Internet to engage in cyber-crime as a funding source. DT: Is it getting any easier to track down the location or identity of a terrorist communication? RC: You can assume all kinds of one-time identities on the Internet. The risk of course, is that a smart computer forensics team can trace back, if not to a particular house, certainly to a particular city where the communication might have come from. They've tried to get around that in the past by using cyber-cafes. But if they are effectively masking their IDs and locations by going through multiple hops and spoofing IP (internet protocol) addresses, it's more difficult. Related Stories: Two hundred two people died in the Bali, Indonesia, disco bombing of October 12, 2002, when a suicide bomber blew himself up on a tourist-bar dance floor, and then, moments later, a second bomber detonated an explosives-filled Mitsubishi van parked outside. Now, the mastermind of the attacks-Imam Samudra, a 35-year-old Islamist militant with links to al--Qaeda-has written a jailhouse memoir that offers a primer on the more sophisticated crime of online credit card fraud, which it promotes as a way for Muslim radicals to fund their activities. Law enforcement authorities say evidence collected from Samudra's laptop computer shows he tried to finance the Bali bombing by committing acts of fraud over the Internet. And his new writings suggest that online fraud-which in 2003 cost credit card companies and banks $1.2 billion in the United States alone-might become a key weapon in terrorist arsenals, if it's not already. We know that terrorist groups throughout the world have financed themselves through crime, says Richard Clarke, the former U.S. counterterrorism czar for President Bush and President Clinton. There is beginning to be a reason to conclude that one of the ways they are financing themselves is through cyber-crime. Online fraud would thereby join the other major ways in which terrorist groups exploit the Internet. The September 11 plotters are known to have used the In-ternet for international communications and information gathering. Hundreds of jihadist websites are used for propaganda and fund-raising purposes and are as -easily accessible as the mainstream websites of major news organizations. And in 2004, the Web was awash with raw video of hostage beheadings perpetrated by -followers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terror leader operating in Iraq. This was no fringe phenomenon. Tens of millions of people downloaded the video files, a kind of vast medieval spectacle enabled by numberless Web hosting companies and Internet service providers, or ISPs. I don't know where the line is. But certainly, we have passed it in the abuse of the Internet, says Gabriel Weimann, a professor of communications at the University of Haifa, who tracks use of the Internet by terrorist groups. Meeting these myriad challenges will require new technology and, some say, stronger self-regulation by the online industry, if only to ward off the more onerous changes or restrictions that might someday be mandated by legal authorities or by the security demands of business interests.
Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB110661076703534640,00.html The Wall Street Journal January 25, 2005 THE MIDDLE SEAT By SCOTT MCCARTNEY Gripes About Airport Security Grow Louder More Travelers Are Stopped For 'Secondary' Checks; A Missed Flight to Atlanta January 25, 2005 The frequency of secondary security screening at airports has increased, and complaints are soaring. Roughly one in every seven passengers is now tagged for secondary screening -- a special search in which an airport screener runs a metal-detecting wand around a traveler's body, then pats down the passenger and searches through bags -- according to the Transportation Security Administration. Currently, 10% to 15% of passengers are picked randomly before boarding passes are issued, the TSA says. An additional number -- the TSA won't say how many -- are selected by the government's generic profiling system, where buying a one-way ticket, paying cash or other factors can earn you extra screening. And more travelers are picked by TSA screeners who spot suspicious bulges or shapes under clothing. It's fair to say the frequency of secondary screening has gone up, says TSA spokeswoman Amy von Walter. Screeners have greater discretion. That may explain why passenger complaints about screening have roughly doubled every month since August. According to numbers compiled by the TSA and reported to the Department of Transportation, 83 travelers complained about screening in August, then 150 in September and 385 in October. By November, the last month reported, complaints had skyrocketed to 652. To be sure, increased use of pat-down procedures in late September after terrorists smuggled bombs aboard two planes in Russia undoubtedly boosted those numbers, though many of those complaints were categorized as courtesy issues, not screening, in the data TSA reports to the DOT. There were 115 courtesy complaints filed with the DOT in September, then 690 in October. By November, the number of courtesy complaints receded to 218. Yet the increased traveler anger at secondary screening hasn't receded. Road warriors complain bitterly about the arbitrary nature of the screening -- many get singled out for one leg of a trip, but not another. For Douglas Downing, a secondary-screening problem resulted in a canceled trip. Mr. Downing was flying from Seattle to Atlanta last fall. He went through security routinely and sat at the gate an hour ahead of his flight's departure. As he boarded, a Delta Air Lines employee noticed that his boarding pass, marked with , hadn't been cleared by the TSA. He was sent back to the security checkpoint. By the time he got screened and returned to the gate, the flight had departed. Delta offered a later flight, but his schedule was so tight he had to cancel the trip. Delta did refund the ticket, even though the airline said it was the TSA's mistake not to catch the screening code. TSA officials blamed Delta. TSA screeners often blame airlines, according to frequent travelers. Ask a screener why you got picked for screening, and they often say the airline does the selection and questions should be directed to the airline. But airlines say they shouldn't be blamed, since they are only running the TSA's programs, and the TSA's Ms. von Walter concurs. I wouldn't go so far as to say we're blaming them, she said. Perhaps some screeners are misinformed in those cases. She also says the TSA isn't sure why screening complaints have risen so sharply since August, although the agency says it may be the result of greater TSA advertising of its contact center (e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or call 1-866-289-9673). If you do get picked, here is how it happened. The TSA requires airlines to pick 10% to 15% of travelers at random. Airlines can de-select a passenger picked at random, such as a child, officials say. In addition, the government's current passenger-profiling system, called Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or CAPPS, picks out passengers. The system, which resides in or communicates with each airline's reservation computers, gives you a score based largely on how you bought your ticket. Airline officials say the TSA has changed the different weightings given various factors, and certain markets may have higher programmed rates for selectees. Passenger lists also are checked against the TSA's list of suspicious names, which has included rather common names and even names of U.S. senators. Interestingly, airline gate agents who see suspicious-looking passengers can no longer flag them for security. Some ticket-counter agents did flag several hijackers for extra security on Sept. 11, 2001, and were praised for their work in the 9/11 Commission's final report. At the time, all that meant was the airline took precautions with the hijackers' checked luggage. But because of racial-discrimination concerns, airline officials aren't allowed to single out passengers for scrutiny; only TSA
