
Ron Paul: Airport Scanners: Enough is Enough - DanielBMarkham
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599164944
======
DanielBMarkham
I hated to post this, because it's a political speech, but I think it's
important historically because I think it shows the tables starting to turn on
this issue. Lord knows I don't want to see a dozen political speeches on HN a
day, but I believe this is unique, it's very tech-related, and its a topic the
community has shown a great amount of interest in.

I imagine once the rest of the professional political class really understands
what a total disaster TSA has created there will be speeches like this
everyday. The bandwagon will be full and more will be clamoring to get on-
board. (and yes, I know they've already started, but this seems to be the
first higher-profile example of a politician just really letting loose on the
issue).

I still remain skeptical that the politicians can fix it, but perhaps we'll
enter a period where lots of speeches are made and fingers pointed. For those
of you who are political junkies, it will be very interesting to see how the
national parties respond to this over the next two years.

~~~
swombat
Is this the kind of problem that a politician like ron paul can fix though?
Thanks in great part to Reddit, Ron Paul is largely associated with crackpot
ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand type movements, so anyone in the know would
probably dismiss anything he does out of hand as "just a stunt move".
Certainly, that's my first impression for his introduction of a bill with no
political support and, as far as I understand the US legal system, zero chance
of actually getting anywhere.

Now, if someone with some political credibility introduced a bill with support
from other members of the House and Senate, that'd be worth pointing out. But
as it is, this is no more "serious" than a good sketch on the Daily Show, is
it?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I don't know. I'm hugely aware of how Ron Paul got stereotyped in the last
election, and I think he's not the guy to fix it.

But we're not at the point of fixing it yet, I don't think (unless TSA comes
to their senses. One can always hope). More likely is that you will see
politicians who are considered outside the mainstream begin to pound the
podium over this. In time, I expect it to become more mainstream. A month
maybe? A year? As hot as folks are, it might happen very quickly.

The big problem here is that the answer requires putting people in charge at
the local airport who are allowed to make mistakes. I hate what's happened to
airport security, but I'd happily do the naked body scan and group grope -- as
long as it was done on an ad-hoc basis. Maybe once out of every thousand
flights or something. There's a bit of a quagmire about the way politics
works, especially involving areas of risk and fear, which I won't go into
here. Let's just say that yes, Ron Paul is not the guy, but things could
change, and change quickly. But the overall problem of how to solve airport
security is just going to stick around. Even if the grownups show up and set
TSA straight, the only thing they're going to learn is how to use fear to sell
even more equipment that intrudes on every passenger. Just in a different way.

They need to find the terrorist, not the weapon. The plane can be full of
weapons, and as long as nobody wishes any harm to be done, it's as safe as a
plane without weapons at all. Such a simple concept, yet I think it's going to
be a bridge too far for policy-makers. (of course a plane can't be full of
nervous people carrying nitro-glycerin and hand grenades, but you get my
point)

~~~
pyre
You're not necessarily looking for the terrorist, though. You might also be
looking for the guy who might have too much to drink, get into an argument
with his seat neighbor, then reach into his bag for his glock. Or the guy
that's just mentally unstable.

Granted, these are one-off cases, but I can't think of a _good_ reason for
people to have guns, or (large) hunting knives in their carry-on luggage. And
truthfully, if people want to pack guns in their checked luggage, from a
safety perspective, it's probably better to have them declare it and put it
into some sort of 'safe' container. Lord knows there will be people with
ammunition that is waiting to misfire inside the luggage storage compartment
of the plane.

(Not that I'm defending the TSA's actions for the past 9 years or anything...)

~~~
Qz
_You might also be looking for the guy who might have too much to drink, get
into an argument with his seat neighbor, then reach into his bag for his
glock._

Has this ever happened?

~~~
pyre
There are plenty of people that get drunk and have done things like assault
airline personnel. It's not a leap to think that one of them might reach for a
weapon at some point.

------
shelly
Here's an overview of the bill - called the "American Traveler Dignity Act"

[http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=...](http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1796&Itemid=60)

And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit
(in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it
through the primaries...

I, too, am doubtful our political system is capable of solving the problem
unless enough of us as individuals are willing to stand up (and be groped)
rather than meekly letting them strip us of our rights.

The duty of the government is to PROTECT our rights, not VIOLATE them!

~~~
ynniv
Better than an overview, here is the full text of the bill:

 _A BILL

To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a
Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal
funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact
with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or
aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a
individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be
in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply
even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other
individual gives consent._

~~~
mjgoins
Isn't this law redundant with the bill of rights? It seems unnecessarily
complicated in its wording. It also seems too good to ever pass.

------
jeromec
"The argument from the executive branch is when you buy a ticket you have
sacrificed your rights; that isn't the case;you never have to sacrifice your
rights." - Ron Paul

~~~
Jach
Correct for this case, but in the interest of nitpicking "never" is false...
If you live in a society with a social contract there are "rights" you
sacrifice. Not that sacrifices are a bad thing: the standard usage implies a
painful loss for something of much greater value in the end, such as
sacrificing a queen to win a game of chess. (Or sacrificing a virgin to gain
favor with the gods. The important point is to make sure you're rationally
measuring utility.)

------
barnaby
I love Dr. Ron Paul! I'm going to call my representative (Mrs. Pelosi) and
encourage her support for this bill!

------
jdavid
Ok, did you listen to the bill?

Paul is not just trying to revert airport security, he is trying to introduce
legislation that removes immunity from the government for anything that a
citizen would not have.

The problem with Paul is he is an idealist. We need a pragmatic libertarian.

------
johnbender
Was anyone else unimpressed with his delivery? From the transcript:

THE PILOT HAS A GUN IN THE COCKPIT AND HE'S MANAGING THIS AIRCRAFT WHICH IS A
MISSILE AND WE MAKE HIM GO THROUGH THIS GROPING X-RAY EXERCISE, HAVING PEOPLE
FEEL IN THEIR UNDERWEAR.

It just gives the impression that he's more excited than thoughtful. Then
again maybe thats more important on the floor of the house.

~~~
fraserharris
The logic is impeccable: why do we search pilots when they get (access to) a
gun once they have been cleared.

~~~
jcl
Actually, I felt this line hurt Paul's case. It's one of those lines that
sounds clever on the first hearing but falls apart on examination -- like "Why
don't they build the plane out of the same stuff as the black box?".

The reason they search pilots is because the only obvious things
distinguishing a pilot from a non-pilot are a fancy uniform and an ID. If
pilots are exempt from screening, then your method of determining who is a
pilot needs to be at least as effective as the screening itself. Otherwise, an
adversary needs only to steal or forge the proper credentials to bypass
screening.

Either Paul is aware of this and is being deliberately misleading to make his
case, or he hasn't given the issue enough consideration.

~~~
meelash
Respectfully, I don't think you've given the issue enough consideration.
You're saying that if they didn't search the pilots, someone would fake as a
pilot to get through security? Then what would he do? Stand awkwardly with the
rest of the crew thinking up a story to explain why there are two pilots (or
three, or whatever) on this particular flight? I would hope that a fake pilot
would be fairly easily and quickly detected by the other pilots (who do know
each other personally, after all).

~~~
jcl
I assume he would change clothes in a restroom stall after getting through
security but before getting to the boarding area. In fact, that might be
overkill... All he needs to do is put away his jacket and hat, maybe put on a
sweater -- actions innocuous enough that they could be done in the open.

------
emilepetrone
Who wants to go flying? <http://twitpic.com/37y876>

------
JangoSteve
That video link isn't working for me anymore, now all I get is a clip with
Rep. Keith Ellison talking about stimulus.

Googled and found the Ron Paul clip on youtube:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwsdq69AHnw>

------
empika
Only thing that could have made this better would have been: "I'm as mad as
hell..." <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q>

------
seldo
I was with him until he started talking about how the "greatest boon" to
airline security had been "a lock on the door and a gun in the cockpit".

Firstly, to my knowledge, nobody has attempted to storm the cockpit since
9/11, so the locks, though a good idea, haven't actually done anything. And
the guns -- projectile weapons not being the best idea when travelling in a
pressurized metal capsule anyway -- have certainly never been fired.

The actual improvement in airline security has been greater vigilance on the
part of passengers, who stopped both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber,
and better intelligence operations in the middle east, which got us the tip-
off about the toner cartridge bomb.

~~~
ja30278
Airplanes only represent a unique terror target if they can be used as weapons
to inflict greater damage. Putting a bomb on a plane will kill several hundred
people, but so will putting a bomb in a mall or train.

Thus, securing the cockpit gets you more bang for the buck by removing a whole
avenue of attack, with relatively low cost (the lock and the gun). While I
agree that firing a gun in a pressurized cabin isn't the best idea, having it
there makes it very likely that the pilots would have an advantage over any
potential hijacker, since keeping other guns off the plane is relatively easy,
and doesn't require overly invasive searching.

------
callahad
Here's the actual text of the bill, H.R.6416<http://thomas.gov/cgi-
bin/query/z?c111%3aH.R.6416%3a>

------
davidw
From the TSA to Ron Paul in one easy step.

This is what you get when you start with the politics articles.

