This is what Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said
about ""ID Rules Exist, But Can't Be Seen"" on 30 Sep 2004 at 17:06
> For instance, is it indeed possible that revealing this rule would
> pose an additional security risk? If such a rule exists (and it doe
Talking out his ass, Tyler Durden wrote:
> That's a good point. And those screeners ain't exactly the cream of the
> crop, if ya' know what I mean. A year ago they were making minimum wage, so
> if someone wanted a copy of those guidelines, it'd be easy as hell to con it
> out of one of em. (IN
At 05:06 PM 9/30/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
>I post this not as a refernce per se, but to ask the question:
>
>Exactly Why Does the Government Not Want to Reveal Their ID Rules?
>
>For instance, is it indeed possible that revealing this rule would pose
an
>additional security risk? If such a rul
John Kelsey wrote...
Maybe. I guess the thing that's confusing about any of these answers is
that the rules as they're >applied must be propogated to thousands of
people. It's not like they could easily hide guidance >like "no more than
10 Arabs per flight" or "double-screen anyone with brown
>From: Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sep 30, 2004 5:06 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: "ID Rules Exist, But Can't Be Seen"
..
>For instance, is it indeed possible that revealing this rule would pose an
>additional security risk? If such a r
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:
> If this is the case, then this reveals what I would argue to be a dangerous
> mindset: The government needs to protect the people from themselves...ie,
> from the normal operation of democracy.
>
> On Cyperhpunks I would suppose this does not seem supris
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,65154,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
I post this not as a refernce per se, but to ask the question:
Exactly Why Does the Government Not Want to Reveal Their ID Rules?
This would seem obvious at first, but upon thinking about it I have to admit
to being a little co
