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

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#141

Post by beedogs »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #138
WiseWeasel wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you're not familiar with the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides a waiver for the federal government's immunity in the case that a federal employee has been shown to have caused wrongful damage.

I am familiar with the Federal Tort Claims Act. No reasonable person would consider your original claim a tort. Where are the damages from one government employee making a hollow threat? What specific expenses or losses did the newspaper incur because a federal employee made a threat? Your case is weak, otherwise lawyers would be fully employed.

What if they suddenly find all of their reporters have been added to the federal no-fly list?

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#142

Post by gaius »

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.

Remind me what year Obama was elected?

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#143

Post by finnw »

dedward wrote: post #132
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…

Is that what the TSA actually said, or just your interpretation of it?

Wouldn't it be a shame if your shop got broken into, looted and set on fire?

Is the above sentence a threat? Of course it is. Not literally (I did not directly say that I would send thugs to loot your shop if you refused to pay me protection money) but a reasonable person would, more likely than not, interpret it as a threat.

If I did not mean it that way but was so dumb as not to anticipate that you would read it that way, I would deserve to go to jail for extortion anyway.

And the TSA, by virtue of having the power to add people to the No Fly List without public scrutiny and knowing of all the rumours of them having added people for political reasons, they should expect any "request" they make to be interpreted that way, and they should take extra care to ensure that it isn't.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#144

Post by finnw »

rhplus wrote: post #85
regularfry wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current arrangement subjects you to one short burst of radiation to take a static image, and it's enough energy to have some doctors worried. Multiply that up by however many frames you want to capture, and I don't think it would be "some doctors" any more. Besides, I've got no idea if the machines in place have microwave units that can withstand a high duty cycle like that. I wouldn't be surprised if they can't.

Does anyone have some independently verified numbers for the amount of radiation that a FBS exposes a passenger to and how it compares to the amount of radiation exposure the same passenger would get from 3 hours in a plane? The TSA claims that the latter is significantly (like 100x) greater than the former.

I'd like to see it on an updated version of this chart:

https://www.xkcd.com/radiation/

(side note: I have the HTTPS version on my clipboard because I hesitated before typing "radiation dosage" into google, and decided to load up Tor to search for it.)

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#145

Post by mcherm »

beedogs wrote: post #141
jcampbell1 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am familiar with the Federal Tort Claims Act. No reasonable person would consider your original claim a tort. Where are the damages from one government employee making a hollow threat? What specific expenses or losses did the newspaper incur because a federal employee made a threat? Your case is weak, otherwise lawyers would be fully employed.

What if they suddenly find all of their reporters have been added to the federal no-fly list?

Then they would have a case. Also if if jackbooted TSA thugs showed up to burn down the newspaper building. But since no one has even alleged that any of these things have happened, can we skip the wild and crazy speculation?

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#146

Post by reitblatt »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #71
scelerat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Anyone who says they don't have an agenda is lying. Everyone has their reasons for doing anything and everything. 2. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an agenda.

Adding to that: If he makes a bundle of money in the course of defending our freedoms, then my hat is off to him. Bravo! From an economics perspective, the fact that someone has turned a profit (in a free market) is prima facie evidence that he has delivered something of value.

Or he's discovered a new kind of sucker, cf. homeopathy.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#147

Post by Drbble »

mcherm wrote: post #145
beedogs wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they suddenly find all of their reporters have been added to the federal no-fly list?

Then they would have a case. Also if if jackbooted TSA thugs showed up to burn down the newspaper building. But since no one has even alleged that any of these things have happened, can we skip the wild and crazy speculation?

Except what actually happens (Hello, PATRIOT act!) is that all the evidence of harm is secret, and so the Supreme Court refuses to grant standing to any injured party, and so discovery never happens and the evidence can never be brought to light and the harm never proven in court. This story has been repeated over and over since 2002.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#148

Post by Drbble »

dlikhten wrote: post #89
Bud wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's not "coming to that". We're well past the security theater stage, and into the nightmare stage. Even hinting that any media not cover this or ANY story is so, so far beyond the purview of TSA that it is shocking (or should be shocking—it has become rather hard to be shocked by TSA) that they would even consider pulling this. The Supreme Court should slap them so hard that their acronym gets mixed up. This is…

Would this be considered blackmail, if the media starts getting harassed by the TSA over covering such stories?

Civil Rights violations, like the Rodney King beating

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#149

Post by Drbble »

rsingel wrote: post #69
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…

Yes, this is exactly right. I've covered TSA and edit a blog that just covered this very story. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/bodyscanner-video/ Sometimes a flak can save you embarrassment and other times you disregard them because you know its a story.

Why would a PR flak ever stop a critic from embarrassing and discrediting himself? That would be gold for the TSA. The only exception would be if the critic is so powerful that even a false story would hurt the TSA. I don't think SmarterTravel is that much of a force. At most, this "caution" is concern trolling.

Re: TSA Pressures Mainstream Media Not To Cover Story

#150

Post by Drbble »

einhverfr wrote: post #120
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…

You need general, sure but the TSA management is not Apple, or even a politicians who uses media manipulation to win hearts and minds. It is just inept damage control trying to cover up corruption and incompetence.
Post reply on HN