7 ms·

Of course it will pass. The government will never willingly give up power and will only seek ways to expand it.

by alwaysrunning 3y ago

graphe 3y ago
The self checkout tsa is the opposite.
- madamelic 3y ago
  Only because we have been boiled to be ok with it. It used to just be x-ray and a bag scan. Now it is a backscatter plus a pat-down if required plus a bag scan. If you get flagged on either, your hands get swabbed down as well. The tech and number of searches is only going to increase over time as more contracts get in on the TSA grift. I have zero doubts at some point they will also begin domestic device scans ("just plug the handy USB-C into your device and hang tight for a few while we ~~download all its contents~~ search for terrorism!) like they already apparently do for international flights under the guise of national security and making sure you aren't plotting something. The self-service TSA booths are to save money on their minimum wage security staff, not to relax security. It increases the amount of surveillance they can pack in by putting you individually through a chokepoint. Think of what you could do if you could lock people into a booth by themselves as they do tasks to be let out. I am being a bit hyperbolic but singling out a person in a potentially enclosed box opens the door massively to techniques such as strip searches (you don't even have to move rooms, how convenient, thanks TSA!) and illegal searches (ugh, really, just let us do it. It'll take 3 minutes and besides, no one will ever believe you that we asked because it's just us here), etc. Then you get into the fun tech that is opened up by having a person isolated such as bomb detection through analyzing residue in the air, far more cameras that can be analyzed by AI/ML ("your left eye twitched 27% more than average: TERRORIST") and analysts at scale, mandatory facial recognition and other biometrics collection (a big issue with facial rec is making sure no one interferes, it's very easy to detect a face when there is only one in the room and you can have the perfect solid color background)
  - teeray 3y ago
    > Think of what you could do if you could lock people into a booth by themselves as they do tasks to be let out. Hey kids, welcome to the TSA escape room! Can you solve our puzzles before you miss your flight?
  - madamelic 3y ago
    > x-ray I am aware I am mildly dumb. Metal detector! Hah!
MSFT_Edging 3y ago
American Exceptionalism means the power is derived from being able to make exceptions to the rules.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  That’s clever wording but I think it isn’t right? I thought American Exceptionalism was the belief that the US is an exception to the rules. Actually, the idea that being an exception to the rules and having the ability to make an exception to the rules are the same, or one implies the other, is pretty interesting and might be worth elaborating on.
  - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    Power is generally defined by the ability to make exception to the rules. Anyone can make a rule, but are you above being punished for breaking it? Important Americans are protected from being tried for war crimes. We have the Hague invasion act. We said out loud "we will kill you if you try to hold us accountable for our actions." If the United States was a moral country that would not do war crimes on purpose, this law wouldn't exist.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> government will never willingly give up power Governments regularly do this. One of the greatest losses for privacy advocates over the last generation is this brand of nihilism making the issue electorally useless.
- dmix 3y ago
  > Governments regularly do this s/regularly/rarely It's a generalization, there's always occasional exceptions to the rule.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > It's a generalization, there's always occasional exception to the rule The point is it’s not a rule. It’s a meme that results from misunderstanding the bureaucratic imperative and oversimplifying into a monolith the complexity of politics and power competition.
    - cultureswitch 3y ago
      One can explain the phenomenon and understand the history yet it's not wrong to say governments (or any other large org really) rarely give up power and only ever do so under coercion.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > it's not wrong to say governments (or any other large org really) rarely give up power It’s incredibly wrong to say this. More modern states fail due to gridlock and fragility than violent coercion. Individual actors rarely give up power without coercion. That doesn’t mean the system as a whole doesn’t ebb and flow as interests diverge and align.
        jancsika 3y ago
        Why are you LARPing based on first principles? Just give examples: * Trump's First Step Act. E.g., title III-- can no longer use restraints on prisoners during pregnancy-- and IV-- reducing mandatory minimums for drug felony convictions * Trump's Affordable Clean Energy rule which removed caps on emissions * Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act back in 1999 * Carter's Airline Deregulation Act back in the late 70s * the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 If I searched my memory for five minutes a day I'd have a list of hundreds by the end of a week. I get that domain expertise doesn't magically apply outside a domain. But how is HN this special level of asinine when it comes to the simple history of legislation in the U.S.? Reading the thread with your interlocutor is like reading someone claim that C only has global scope. What could they possibly have read to convince them of such a thing?
flkenosad 3y ago
Not true at all. This isn't Game of Thrones.
the_optimist 3y ago
Discard this attitude. It is defeatist resignation, and it is indistinguishable from the opposition.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  3 month old account pushing unproductive defeatist nihilism. If you pay attention you'll see this in every thread about the US and users somehow think it's worth upvoting.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Of course it will pass. The government will never willingly give up power and will only seek ways to expand it.

graphe 3y ago

The self checkout tsa is the opposite.

madamelic 3y ago
Only because we have been boiled to be ok with it. It used to just be x-ray and a bag scan. Now it is a backscatter plus a pat-down if required plus a bag scan. If you get flagged on either, your hands get swabbed down as well. The tech and number of searches is only going to increase over time as more contracts get in on the TSA grift. I have zero doubts at some point they will also begin domestic device scans ("just plug the handy USB-C into your device and hang tight for a few while we ~~download all its contents~~ search for terrorism!) like they already apparently do for international flights under the guise of national security and making sure you aren't plotting something. The self-service TSA booths are to save money on their minimum wage security staff, not to relax security. It increases the amount of surveillance they can pack in by putting you individually through a chokepoint. Think of what you could do if you could lock people into a booth by themselves as they do tasks to be let out. I am being a bit hyperbolic but singling out a person in a potentially enclosed box opens the door massively to techniques such as strip searches (you don't even have to move rooms, how convenient, thanks TSA!) and illegal searches (ugh, really, just let us do it. It'll take 3 minutes and besides, no one will ever believe you that we asked because it's just us here), etc. Then you get into the fun tech that is opened up by having a person isolated such as bomb detection through analyzing residue in the air, far more cameras that can be analyzed by AI/ML ("your left eye twitched 27% more than average: TERRORIST") and analysts at scale, mandatory facial recognition and other biometrics collection (a big issue with facial rec is making sure no one interferes, it's very easy to detect a face when there is only one in the room and you can have the perfect solid color background)
- teeray 3y ago
  > Think of what you could do if you could lock people into a booth by themselves as they do tasks to be let out. Hey kids, welcome to the TSA escape room! Can you solve our puzzles before you miss your flight?
- madamelic 3y ago
  > x-ray I am aware I am mildly dumb. Metal detector! Hah!

MSFT_Edging 3y ago

American Exceptionalism means the power is derived from being able to make exceptions to the rules.

bee_rider 3y ago
That’s clever wording but I think it isn’t right? I thought American Exceptionalism was the belief that the US is an exception to the rules. Actually, the idea that being an exception to the rules and having the ability to make an exception to the rules are the same, or one implies the other, is pretty interesting and might be worth elaborating on.
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  Power is generally defined by the ability to make exception to the rules. Anyone can make a rule, but are you above being punished for breaking it? Important Americans are protected from being tried for war crimes. We have the Hague invasion act. We said out loud "we will kill you if you try to hold us accountable for our actions." If the United States was a moral country that would not do war crimes on purpose, this law wouldn't exist.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> government will never willingly give up power Governments regularly do this. One of the greatest losses for privacy advocates over the last generation is this brand of nihilism making the issue electorally useless.

dmix 3y ago
> Governments regularly do this s/regularly/rarely It's a generalization, there's always occasional exceptions to the rule.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > It's a generalization, there's always occasional exception to the rule The point is it’s not a rule. It’s a meme that results from misunderstanding the bureaucratic imperative and oversimplifying into a monolith the complexity of politics and power competition.
  - cultureswitch 3y ago
    One can explain the phenomenon and understand the history yet it's not wrong to say governments (or any other large org really) rarely give up power and only ever do so under coercion.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > it's not wrong to say governments (or any other large org really) rarely give up power It’s incredibly wrong to say this. More modern states fail due to gridlock and fragility than violent coercion. Individual actors rarely give up power without coercion. That doesn’t mean the system as a whole doesn’t ebb and flow as interests diverge and align.
      - jancsika 3y ago
        Why are you LARPing based on first principles? Just give examples: * Trump's First Step Act. E.g., title III-- can no longer use restraints on prisoners during pregnancy-- and IV-- reducing mandatory minimums for drug felony convictions * Trump's Affordable Clean Energy rule which removed caps on emissions * Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act back in 1999 * Carter's Airline Deregulation Act back in the late 70s * the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 If I searched my memory for five minutes a day I'd have a list of hundreds by the end of a week. I get that domain expertise doesn't magically apply outside a domain. But how is HN this special level of asinine when it comes to the simple history of legislation in the U.S.? Reading the thread with your interlocutor is like reading someone claim that C only has global scope. What could they possibly have read to convince them of such a thing?

flkenosad 3y ago

Not true at all. This isn't Game of Thrones.

the_optimist 3y ago

Discard this attitude. It is defeatist resignation, and it is indistinguishable from the opposition.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
3 month old account pushing unproductive defeatist nihilism. If you pay attention you'll see this in every thread about the US and users somehow think it's worth upvoting.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]