Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#111

Post by prodigal_erik »

epaga wrote: post #98

Though both the email and the blog response from TSA are incredibly unprofessional, the email is NOT intimidation or a "veiled threat", and exaggerating by claiming it is is not going to help a sane discussion about this issue. What do you think the TSA is "threatening" to do? They have no power over the media. All the TSA are saying is "exercise caution with reporting on bloggers that make random statements because…

Reporters travel a lot. Severe abuses of the opaque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List have long been alleged, and I certainly wouldn't put it past them to retaliate that way.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#112

Post by tptacek »

sitkack wrote: post #110
tptacek wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd like to make that argument, you can, but it doesn't rebut the poll data that shows a clear majority of Americans favor the machines. (I would prefer they did not, but you can't always get what you want.)

Favor the machines over a pat-down. They would actually _prefere_ neither.

Sorry, this is wishful (I share your wish). The reality is, the polls aren't posing the either/or question. Respondents can favor the imaging machines and reject the pat-downs. Here's a sample question:

    The Transportation Security Administration is increasing its use of so-called 
    'full-body' digital x-ray machines to screen passengers in airport security lines. 
    (Supporters say these machines improve the ability to spot hidden weapons and 
    explosives, and reduce the need for physical searches.) (Opponents say these machines 
    invade privacy by producing x-ray images of a passenger’s naked body that security 
    officials can see, and don’t provide enough added security to justify this.) Which 
    comes closer to your own view – do you support or oppose using these scanners in
    airport security lines?
You would find the actual breakdown of responses equally dispiriting.

Americans think the imaging machines are a good idea. Americans are unreasonably scared of threats to airplanes. That shouldn't surprise you, since Americans are also unreasonably scared of airplanes.

In any case, if this is a "failure of democracy", it is not a failure of the kind imagined by the root comment on this thread.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#113

Post by weixiyen »

danso wrote: post #55

Just want to point this out: "strongly caution" is what the TSA flak told the reporter (according to the reporter). That doesn't necessarily mean "don't report this or we'll send you to Gitmo". It most likely was expressed in the context of "you're going to look stupid/spread misinformation if you do." I'm not saying the TSA flak won't be vindictive if a reporter covers the story. I'm just saying, there's not an imme…

> "you're going to look stupid/spread misinformation if you do."

"And then we will send you to Gitmo for spreading misinformation."

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#114

Post by rorrr »

teej wrote: post #29
bpd1069 wrote: post #16

Overlay a thin layer of material over the metal plate (the dark/black region in the images) that has a regular repeating pattern (think checkerboard) that shows objects suspended beyond the body's silhouette. Problem solved.

The problem isn't that this one particular technique exists. The problem is that the TSA's decision making process led them to spend billions of dollars a year against the advisement of the top security experts in the world. For an organization who's sole purpose is the security of the American people, they're awfully bad at doing things that ensure the security of the American people.

> For an organization who's sole purpose is the security of the American people

Their sole purpose is to make money. They obviously don't give a damn about security.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#115

Post by pessimizer »

IanDrake wrote: post #80
grandalf wrote: post #37

The TSA probably views its own mission as largely a propaganda mission. It's just creepy when we realize that it is trying to silence public debate. The biggest oddity to me is that it's been over 10 years and this debate hasn't actually happened in the mainstream media. I think one aspect of most orgs that have entrenched power is that they are always very deferent toward government. NPR is a great example... there…

I don't know if that's entirely true. NPR was really suspicious of the government before 2008. Then something changed.

The change happened earlier than 2008. It happened when funding was getting dismantled in Congress and subsequently a conservative ombudsman was appointed along with a guy to run operations that used to run Radio Free Europe. After that, it was National Petroleum Radio.

Republicans largely support the things that we're objecting to here, along with Obama.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#116

Post by nitrogen »

tsaoutourpants wrote: post #101
pavel_lishin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incredibly suspicious to allude to an e-mail from the TSA, but not actually include a copy of said e-mail.

Second source confirms in comments! SmarterTravel March 8, 2012 at 3:34 pm | #11 Reply | Quote | Edit We were also “strongly cautioned” not to cover the story. We did anyway at SmarterTravel: http://tinyurl.com/7te5wj8

For the cautious, the above tinyurl expands to http://www.smartertravel.com/blogs/today-in-travel/did-blogg...

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#117

Post by travisp »

rhizome wrote: post #72
danso wrote: post #55

Just want to point this out: "strongly caution" is what the TSA flak told the reporter (according to the reporter). That doesn't necessarily mean "don't report this or we'll send you to Gitmo". It most likely was expressed in the context of "you're going to look stupid/spread misinformation if you do." I'm not saying the TSA flak won't be vindictive if a reporter covers the story. I'm just saying, there's not an imme…

What does the TSA care about people looking stupid? Boing Boing took down their TSA post.

Let's suppose the story was bogus and the reporters would look stupid (neither is true). The TSA might still not want the story to be spread widely, because people will remember the original story, but not the corrections hidden in small print.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#118

Post by mikeash »

Retric wrote: post #100
reidmain wrote: post #95

Security through obscurity. Doesn't work on the Internet. Doesn't work in real-life.

Passwords are Security through obscurity. That does not make them useless, just vulnerable.

That is not what "security through obscurity" means. The phrase specifically refers to security which relies on secrecy of design or implementation details.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#119

Post by bpd1069 »

akavi wrote: post #105
aroberge wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think it is black in the first place? Think physics and X-rays, not computer screen...

Have the backgroundpattern made of alternating pieces of absorbent and transparent material, then. (I assume the machines work by measuring obstruction of rays. If they work by reflection of rays, then replace "absorbent and transparent" with "absorbent and reflective".)

Yes, that is basically what I suggested, the material (film) would just drape over the backscatter plate. The resultant image (without a subject) would resemble a black / not so black checkerboard pattern.

The image appears to be a negative relative to the amount of xrays reflected back to the xray source so the additional material would simply have to be slightly less reflective (more absorbent) than the backscatter plate.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#120

Post by einhverfr »

danso wrote: post #55

Just want to point this out: "strongly caution" is what the TSA flak told the reporter (according to the reporter). That doesn't necessarily mean "don't report this or we'll send you to Gitmo". It most likely was expressed in the context of "you're going to look stupid/spread misinformation if you do." I'm not saying the TSA flak won't be vindictive if a reporter covers the story. I'm just saying, there's not an imme…

I think it's probably in the middle.

You have to remember that journalists rely on sources, and some of those sources come from government agencies. A strong caution contains an implied threat of non-cooperation, i.e. if you cover that story, we will be feeding other journalists more info than we feed you.

We've already been seeing this a lot with the current administration, regarding trying to ban Fox News from the press pool (ok, I am no fan of Fox News, and I was a fan of Obama in 2008, but COME ON). In context, this is a meaningful threat.

However, I wonder if the issue has to do more with the "get rid of the TSA" rhetoric in the post than it does with the security hole.

Post reply on HN